2009 science blog entry: A 2004 study led by scientist David Keith usi

Question

2009 science blog entry: A 2004 study led by scientist David Keith using computer generated simulations concluded that a global implementation of wind turbines could actually change wind patterns and exacerbate climate change. While this issue has not been fully studied, it is yet another indicator that unless we actively seek to minimize our energy consumption, alternatives to fossil-fuel-generated energy will only repeat the same failures as the current energy paradigm: the pattern of over-consumption through the exploitation of nature.

Which of the following is most strongly supported by the argument above?

A. Global use of solar technology to meet current levels of energy demand would be harmful to the environment.
B. Wind turbine technology should be abandoned in favor of energy production from other renewable resources.
C. Continued over-consumption of energy is inevitable, given the failures of our current energy paradigm.
D. Currently observed changes in global wind patterns have probably been caused by wind turbines.
E. Fossil fuels should be a significant part of our future energy paradigm.

Sushil117 · Answer

A. Global use of solar technology to meet current levels of energy demand would be harmful to the environment.
correct. that's what the passage says ,a global use of any alternative would end up in the same trap.

B. Wind turbine technology should be abandoned in favor of energy production from other renewable resources.
the wind turbine isn't the problem here. any alternative ,used on global scale ,is .

C. Continued over-consumption of energy is inevitable, given the failures of our current energy paradigm.
nothing is given about continued over consumption. incorrect

D. Currently observed changes in global wind patterns have probably been caused by wind turbines.
are wind turbines implemented globally already? not sure. most likely wrong.

E. Fossil fuels should be a significant part of our future energy paradigm.
irrelevant

IMO A

KingOfTheCheckers · Answer

Can I get an explanation for the process to arrive at the right answer?

nedunurianurag · Answer

2009 science blog entry: A 2004 study led by scientist David Keith using computer generated simulations concluded that a global implementation of wind turbines could actually change wind patterns and exacerbate climate change. While this issue has not been fully studied, it is yet another indicator that unless we actively seek to minimize our energy consumption, alternatives to fossil-fuel-generated energy will only repeat the same failures as the current energy paradigm: the pattern of over-consumption through the exploitation of nature.

Which of the following is most strongly supported by the argument above?

The following is my thought process on this:

A. Global use of solar technology to meet current levels of energy demand would be harmful to the environment.
 This is a very tempting answer. We are talking about alternatives to fossil-fuel-generated energy and yes, solar technology will fall under the umbrella of the alternatives. But the issue with this option is that it goes far more than what the premises can prove. Firstly, we are not sure if solar energy would create the same issue as wind turbines. They are altogether different technologies. Also, we are just talking about climate change and wind patterns. I feel environment is a stretch and of broader scope. It can include life forms, soil and others. Hence, I have eliminated this option. 
B. Wind turbine technology should be abandoned in favor of energy production from other renewable resources.
 This is too extreme. The premises do not suggest this. 
C. Continued over-consumption of energy is inevitable, given the failures of our current energy paradigm.
 This is a plausible answer that can be proven from the facts in the stimulus. The second premise gives an indication that reduced energy consumption is the way going forward and that alternatives might not help much.  
D. Currently observed changes in global wind patterns have probably been caused by wind turbines
 Stimulus says that "a global implementation of wind turbines could actually change wind patterns ". Here the key word is could. This option stretches that information and attributes the current issues to the first statement of the stimulus 
E. Fossil fuels should be a significant part of our future energy paradigm.
This is completely opposite

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Anybody can explain why D is wrong? As passage says: implementation of wind turbines (could) actually change wind patterns, and D says: changes in global wind patterns have (probably) been caused by wind turbines. Why wrong?
And In C, Continued over-consumption of energy is (inevitable), I don’t see passage says it is inevitable, so why C is correct?

nedunurianurag · Answer

The option says that  Currently  observed changes in global wind patterns have probably been caused by wind turbines. Stimulus says that "a global implementation of wind turbines could actually change wind patterns " - This means that the implementation could have changed the patterns but not necessarily. Although option D says that the changes in wind patterns  have probably been caused , does it necessarily needs to be true? Remember in a support question, the answer choice should be supported 100% by the facts of the stimulus.

While Option C seems to be strong, it is supported better by the last line of the stimulus: it is yet another indicator that unless we actively seek to minimize our energy consumption, alternatives to fossil-fuel-generated energy will only repeat the same failures as the current energy paradigm: the pattern of over-consumption through the exploitation of nature.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Make some sense. Got you and much thanks

babataer1 · Answer

Why is the answer here C?
The author says over-consumption must be addressed, not that it is inevitable.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Between A and C, i think A is too narrow or too specific while (C) directly goes to core of the passage. (A) says solar would be harmful but solar isn’t mentioned in the passage. The failure of the current energy paradigm is overconsumption; without minimizing it, that overconsumption will continue (implied inevitable if we don’t act, and we’re not acting per the passage’s pessimistic tone).

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hello

But the phrase " unless  we actively seek to minimize our energy consumption" is an explicit call to action, framing minimized consumption as a necessary goal. The argument is a  warning  to avoid the failure, not a  declaration  that the failure is certain ( inevitable ).

egmat · Answer

Your instinct about "unless" is sharp - but you missed a critical qualifier in C.

Look at C again:
 "...inevitable,  given the failures of our current energy paradigm "

That phrase changes everything.

What you read:  "Over-consumption is inevitable" (absolute claim) 
 What C actually says:  "Over-consumption is inevitable  within the current paradigm " (conditional claim)

This MATCHES the passage's logic perfectly:

The passage says:
 
 Current paradigm = over-consumption pattern (the "failure") 
 UNLESS we minimize → this pattern continues

C is essentially restating: "If we stay in the current paradigm, over-consumption continues."
The "unless we minimize" IS the exit from the current paradigm. C describes what happens if we  don't  take that exit.

Why A is weaker: 
 
 Solar isn't mentioned  (requires inference)  
 "Harmful to environment" must be inferred from "exploitation of nature"  (another leap)  
 C uses the passage's  exact terminology : over-consumption, current paradigm, failures

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hi gullyboy09

" unless  we actively seek to minimize our energy consumption"

This is an exception given by the author, He didn't tell us whether we can fulfill this condition or not. There is neither warning nor a declaration in the passage but a simple arguemnt. Also read the second half of answer  choice (C) , given the failures of our current energy paradigm. This shows us that how we are going with the energy consumption, In case we are going with the same energy consumption pattern, over-consumption is inevitable.

2009 science blog entry: A 2004 study led by scientist David Keith usi

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

2009 science blog entry: A 2004 study led by scientist David Keith usi

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards