Few ideas are more deeply entrenched in our political culture than

Question

Few ideas are more deeply entrenched in our political culture than that of impending ecological doom. Beginning in 1962, when Rachel Carson warned that pollution was a threat to all human and animal life on the planet, pessimistic appraisals of the health of the environment have been issued with increasing urgency.

And yet, thanks in large part to her warnings, a powerful political movement was born and a series of landmark environmental bills became law. These laws and their equivalents in Western Europe, along with a vast array of private efforts spurred by environmental consciousness that Carson helped raise, have been a stunning success in both the United States and Europe where environmental trends are, for the most part, positive; and environmental regulations, far from being burdensome and expensive, have proved to be strikingly effective, have cost less than was anticipated, and have made the economies of the countries that have put them into effect stronger, not weaker.

Recycling, which was a fringe idea a decade ago, is now a major growth industry, and is converting more than twenty per cent of America‘s municipal wastes into useful products. Emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer, have been declining since 1987. Dozens of American cities once dumped raw sludge into the ocean. Today, instead of being dumped into the ocean, municipal sludge is either disposed of in regulated landfills or, increasingly, put to good use as fertilizer.

America‘s record of protecting species threatened with extinction, which is often depicted as dismal, is in truth enviable. Since 1973, when the Endangered Species Act took effect, seven animal species in North America have disappeared. Several hundred others once considered certain to die out continue to exist in the wild. A number of species, including the bald eagle and the Arctic peregrine falcon have been or are being taken off the priority-protection list.

It‘s true, of course, that some environmental programs are muddled. For instance, the Endangered Species Act can have the unfair effect of penalizing landholders who discover rare creatures on their property, by prohibiting use of the land. In the main, though, conservation has been an excellent investment. Thanks to legislation, technical advances, and lawsuits that have forced polluters to pay liability costs, America‘s air and water are getting cleaner, forests are expanding, and many other environmental indicators are on the upswing.

Nevertheless, the vocabulary of environmentalism has continued to be dominated by images of futility, crisis, and decline. Nor are environmentalists the only people reluctant to acknowledge the good news; advocates at both ends of the political spectrum, each side for its reasons, seem to have tacitly agreed to play it down. The left is afraid of the environmental good news because it undercuts stylish pessimism; the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost.   1 
 1. Which of the following statements is false as it pertains to the information given in the passage?

A. Chlorofluorocarbons no longer damage the ozone layer.
B. Technical advances have contributed to conservation.
C. Raw sludge is no longer a source of ocean pollution for the United States.
D. Recycling has had an impact on landfill dumping.
E. Some environmental programs are muddled

2 
 2. Based on information in the passage, each of the following statements is a plausible explanation of why pessimistic appraisals of the environment continue to be issued EXCEPT:

A. environmentalists and politicians are unaware of the successes of the movement.
B. an immense amount of work still needs to be done to save the environment.
C. optimistic evaluations would have unwanted political repercussions.
D. environmentalists garner support by arousing concerns and fears.
E. selfish interests of certain groups of people

3 
 3. If the claims made in the passage are correct, how would politicians on the political right be expected to react to America‘s program to protect endangered species from extinction?

A. They would extol it because its success is not attributable to governmental regulation.
B. They would extol it because its success refutes the pessimistic claims of the political left.
C. They would criticize it because its success was due to costly regulations.
D. They would criticize it because it has not shown any measurable success.
E. They would be indifferent towards it

4 
 4. What is the main function of the 3rd paragraph in the passage?

A. to criticise industry for increased pollution
B. to urge the government to ban the dumping of effluents in rivers
C. to suggest that things are not bad as are made out to be by certain groups of people
D. to describe the positive impact of efforts to control environmental degradation
E. to provide an agenda for pollution control

Spoorthy · Answer

Hi, 
I think the answer to Q3 is C as well.

After reading the official explanation, looks like the answer choices B & C were flipped between the Question & Answer explanation.

Question 
B. They would extol it because its success refutes the pessimistic claims of the political left.
C. They would criticize it because its success was due to costly regulations.

Official Explanation 
(C): Out of Scope. The right might enjoy refuting the claims of the left, but not if it comes with heavy governmental regulation.

But if you read carefully, Choice B is the one talking about refuting the claims of the left. A quick google search of the question shows that C is the right answer.

Hope this helps with the confusion. Thanks for posting the question!

WaterFlowsUp · Answer

I believe the answer to be B. C has a much wider scope. 
Please read the last 2 lines.

Spoorthy · Answer

Hmm.. I am not so sure. I think the Option B is the more generic one as the passage never mentions anything about the right trying to praise the program. It is like saying that the right praises anything as long as the left refutes it. In fact the author actually says, both left & right are not supporting the program.

Last two sentences of the passage: 
 "the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost."

Again, the author never said that the right will praise or support the program. He actually said they will probably not support it because they do not want to admit that the government regulations actually produce benefits at  an affordable cost . I think this almost translates to that they will criticize the program due to its heavy cost.

UJs · Answer

Q2:  is all about the last paragraph , starting with Contrast  "Nevertheless"

Q: Based on information in the passage, each of the following statements is a plausible explanation of why pessimistic appraisals of the environment continue to be issued EXCEPT:  
 or in simple words, even though (efforts to control environmental degradation) are showing +ve results, why different groups are not acknowledging it , which one below is not a possible Reason ?

A. environmentalists and politicians are unaware of the successes of the movement.   ---> read the part where it says, they know it but (reluctant to acknowledge the good news).    Correct  
B. an immense amount of work still needs to be done to save the environment.   ---> environmentalists reason to play it down  
C. optimistic evaluations would have unwanted political repercussions.   ---> political right reason to play it down  
D. environmentalists garner support by arousing concerns and fears.   ---> same as B environmentalists reason to play it down  
E. selfish interests of certain groups of people.   ---> same as C political right reason

Nevertheless , the vocabulary of environmentalism has continued to be dominated by images of futility, crisis, and decline. Nor are environmentalists the only people reluctant to acknowledge the good news; advocates at both ends of the political spectrum,  each side for its reasons , seem to have tacitly  agreed to play it down . The left is afraid of the environmental good news because it undercuts stylish pessimism; the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost.

shagalo · Answer

can you please summarize the last paragraph in easier language. I'm not sure that i really understood the 
{  Nor are environmentalists the only people reluctant to acknowledge the good news; advocates at both ends of the political spectrum, each side for its reasons, seem to have tacitly agreed to play it down. The left is afraid of the environmental good news because it undercuts stylish pessimism; the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost  }

my understanding is : even though those environmental laws have positive affects but still some don't like them such as the LEFT and the RIGHT parties. 
the Lift don't like the laws because it reduce the pessimism and the right don't like them because the results of these laws shows that the government is good and affective. :/ which don't make sense why the lift and the right are so bad ?? :/

can you please explain the last paragraph and explain its relationship to the first paragraph (the structure )

thank you

msalvi · Answer

The paragraph mentions that neither left nor right want to acknowledge the positive effects of environmental laws for their own agenda.

The Left is in favor of environmental laws, but they don't want to acknowledge that a great progress has been made in the implementation of these laws. They still want to portray a dire situation,
so that they can go on with their agenda of more regulation and more protectionism , or you can say more government control and regulation.

The Right doesn't want to acknowledge that the laws are working and improving America's environment in general, because if they acknowledge this, it implies that for once government regulation was needed. The Right wants minimum government regulation.

dushyanta · Answer

1. Which of the following statements is false as it pertains to the information given in the passage?

A. Chlorofluorocarbons no longer damage the ozone layer.  They still damage, It is just the emissions are lowered down. False. Contender 
B. Technical advances have contributed to conservation.  Thanks to legislation, technical advances, and lawsuits that have forced polluters to pay liability cost, Not false for sure 
C. Raw sludge is no longer a source of ocean pollution for the United States. True, instead of being dumped into the ocean, municipal sludge is either disposed of in regulated landfills or, increasingly, put to good use as fertilizer 
D. Recycling has had an impact on landfill dumping.  is converting more than twenty per cent of America‘s municipal wastes into useful products Not false for sure 
E. Some environmental programs are muddled
 It‘s true, of course, that some environmental programs are muddled

2. Based on information in the passage, each of the following statements is a plausible explanation of why pessimistic appraisals of the environment continue to be issued EXCEPT:

EXCEPT QUESTION  
A. environmentalists and politicians are unaware of the successes of the movement.
 As per Last Para, they are aware but they want to downplay the success - Definite Contender 
B. an immense amount of work still needs to be done to save the environment.
 Quite Possible 
C. optimistic evaluations would have unwanted political repercussions.
 That is the reason/ fear political left and right do not want to acknowledge it 
D. environmentalists garner support by arousing concerns and fears.
 Not mentioned - but quite possible - Still mark contender and then compare the other contender 
E. selfish interests of certain groups of people
 Definitely true

3. If the claims made in the passage are correct, how would politicians on the political right be expected to react to America‘s program to protect endangered species from extinction?

@sajjadahmad/  generis  - I need clarity on this one. I am not sure how to approach this one as my answer does not match with OA

Below is How I assumed:-
A. They would extol it because its success is not attributable to governmental regulation.
 It is attributable to governmental regulation, Government has made programs specific for this

B. They would extol it because its success refutes the pessimistic claims of the political left.
 This would be appropriate for Political left, for Political right cost was one factor but again it has not cost much to the government - thats what i have inferred from --  the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost .

C. They would criticize it because its success was due to costly regulations.
 It is mentioned it has worked well with being affordable 
D. They would criticize it because it has not shown any measurable success.
 There are definite numbers given for the success--  "America‘s air and water are getting cleaner, forests are expanding, and many other environmental  indicators are on the upswing"  . 
E. They would be indifferent towards it
 This appears to be correct to me, as POE method and also as by personalizing the argument

4. What is the main function of the 3rd paragraph in the passage?

Recycling, which was a fringe idea a decade ago, is now a major growth industry, and is converting more than twenty per cent of America‘s municipal wastes into useful products. Emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer, have been declining since 1987. Dozens of American cities once dumped raw sludge into the ocean. Today, instead of being dumped into the ocean, municipal sludge is either disposed of in regulated landfills or, increasingly, put to good use as fertilizer. 
A. to criticise industry for increased pollution
 Does not talk about  increased  pollution 
B. to urge the government to ban the dumping of effluents in rivers
 It talks about the bans/ policies/ laws are already in place and now the effects of them 
C. to suggest that things are not bad as are made out to be by certain groups of people
 Not really in this Paragraph, In this paragraph only details about the changes brought by the policies are talked about 
D. to describe the positive impact of efforts to control environmental degradation
 Correct - It talks about Positive impact of the policies - Contender 
E. to provide an agenda for pollution control
 again Not an agenda but the changes brought by the policies are talked about

generis · Answer

QUESTION #3 - SOLUTION   (As I see the matter, for Question #3,  no answer is correct )

Relevant portions of the passage include:
 environmental regulations, far from being burdensome and expensive, have proved to be strikingly effective, have cost less than was anticipated, and have made the economies of the countries that have put them into effect stronger, not weaker. 
-- environmental regulations are effective, have cost less than anticipated, and have strengthened the economy

America‘s record of  protecting species threatened with extinction , which is often depicted as dismal,  is in truth enviable . Since 1973, when the Endangered Species Act took effect, 
-- Since 1973, when a law went into effect, protecting endangered species in the U.S. has been resoundingly successful—enviably so.

advocates at both ends of the political spectrum play   down  . . . . the right is afraid of the good news because  it shows  that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost. 
-- the right does not want to acknowledge good news that  shows  (proves) that government regulations
(1) are not wickedness incarnate = are beneficial and successful
(2) are affordable (do not cost too much)

THE QUESTION  
 
 THE OPTIONS 
 
• No. The passage explains that government regulations, passed in response to heightened consciousness about dangers to the environment, have been central to the successful address of threats to the environment
• The passage credits the Endangered Species act of 1973 (a governmental regulation) with many successes and lists them.
• NOT attributable to government regulation? Barely mentioned.
-- It is true that "the laws, along with private efforts, have been a stunning success" (P2) and that "technical advances" are partly responsible for success (P5)
But those mentions of non-governmental action are general and not tied to preservation of species. 
-- A government regulation, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, is credited with success.
• The regulations are mostly responsible for success generally. These regulations are so effective that the right  does not want to talk about them  
-- "environmental regulations, far from being burdensome and expensive, have proved to be strikingly effective"
• The passage gives us no reason to believe that the right would (1) talk about success or (2) lie about the basis of success
Eliminate A

• if the claims in the passage are true, the right is not going to extol ANY success achieved by government regulation. 
-- They have been silent. Why would they change?
• nothing in the passage suggests that the right cares about the alleged pessimism on the left. 
-- We have no idea what the right thinks about the left's alleged pessimism. 
-- We do know that the right does not talk about environmentalism's success.
• This cannot be the answer. 
Eliminate B

• probably the best of 5 bad answers, though I think (C) is not even remotely close to accurate

• the passage says that the regulations (1) cost less than anticipated; (2) strengthened the economy; and (3) "actually produce benefits at an affordable cost"
• the passage also says that "conservation has been an excellent investment."

• I suppose that the right could  lie  about "affordable costs" and "strengthened economies" and "excellent investment(s)"
• I suppose that the right could lie or exaggerate and say that ANY cost is too costly
-- Example #1: the right could argue that one externality is too costly: private landowners who discover a rare animal on their lands are prohibited from using those lands   
-- Example #2: the right could argue that polluters should not have to pay for polluting.

• nothing in this passage says that the regulations are "costly" or that the right believes the regulations are costly. 
-- The right is shutting up about the "good news" of environmental regulation because this regulation is not evil incarnate and  IS affordable  (last line) 
KEEP C? ELIMINATE C? ( My call: Eliminate C. )

• if the claims in the passage are correct, then the governmental regulatory program to protect endangered species from extinction has been a measurable success.
From the passage:    seven animal species in North America have disappeared. Several hundred others once considered certain to die out continue to exist in the wild. A number of species, including the bald eagle and the Arctic peregrine falcon have been or are being taken off the priority-protection list. 
• I suppose that the right could lie about these successes. 
-- If such lying were likely, then why is the right not lying NOW? 
-- Why is the right being quiet about environmentalism's success now?
Eliminate D

• the right cannot simultaneously be afraid of/hostile towards  and  indifferent towards something. 
-- To be indifferent is not to care. 
-- The right cares. They  don't want to talk about  good environmental news because government regulation created it.
They are "afraid." Afraid is not "indifferent."
Eliminate E

Conclusion: The only answer that stands a chance is (C), but its accuracy turns on a guarantee that the right would lie and exaggerate about the program to protect endangered species. So far the right has remained silent. Nothing in the passage suggests that the right is NOT silent or would not be silent about endangered species programs.

This question is not well written. 
  I think that no answer to #3 is correct .

Hope that helps.

(Am I really writing "success of environmentalism" on a day during which  schoolkids are leading strikes in order to protect the planet?  I'll be clear: I'm with the kids. )

dushyanta · Answer

Personalization as in How I am approaching the RCs
By considering if I would be the Political Right person what would I do, given the things presented in the Passage
I would either act indifferent about it showing my reluctance or I would talk about something else which is the problems of landlords who had to leave their lands if any endangered species made its habitat in their lands

Now the latter option is not available I will chose the former.. i ll act indifferently..

generis · Answer

The argument is very sensible and creative but I do not think it has enough support from the passage. 
The right has not been indifferent; they've been too afraid of political ramifications to be indifferent.

I  would  agree with you if the language in option E said that the right would ACT as if they were indifferent (that phrasing is very similar to yours).
I would base my agreement on this very thin evidence from the passage:    reluctant to acknowledge  the good news.

The right has not  been  (felt) indifferent. The right has been afraid. 
In English, the distinction between being indifferent and acting indifferent is quite a difference.

I can  be  (= feel) afraid or worried or angry but I can  act  as though I am indifferent.
If I actually  am  indifferent, I do not care at all. The right cares. They're afraid of regulatory success of any kind.

Your analysis is interesting. Nice work.
I'm still writing this question off as wrong!

Sajjad1994 · Answer

The OA given here was  C  which was wrong, the real OA is  B  instead of  C , so i have updated the OA and posted OE of the same. Let me know if you have any questions.

Official Explanation

3. If the claims made in the passage are correct, how would politicians on the political right be expected to react to America‘s program to protect endangered species from extinction?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

What do we know from the passage about protecting endangered species? Only two things: that it‘s been successful but unfair to landowners. Which is the political right more likely to care about? Likely landowners and the right would likely attack the program on this basis. A quick scan of reaction knocks out  (A) and (B) , and understanding the reasons for that reaction leads immediately to  (C) .

(A):  Opposite. While the right might like a lack of regulation, the program‘s success is only because of regulation.

(B):  The correct answer

(C):  Out of Scope. The right might enjoy refuting the claims of the left, but not if it comes with heavy governmental regulation.

(D):  Distortion. While the right will reject the program, they‘re concerned less with the aspect of its success than its cost. Furthermore, we already know the program has been successful.

(E):  They would not be indifferent as described above

Answer: B

Hope it helps

sssanskaar · Answer

Dear VeritasKarishma DmitryFarber , Can you please help with Qn#3

The OA given is B but I think that the OA should be C. Please help. In the passage about the right-wing politicians, nothing is mentioned related to political rivalry with the left-wing politicians. But it is mentioned that - " the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost. "

KarishmaB · Answer

Looks like there is a big confusion between (B) and (C) even in the official solution so ignore it all.

Relevant parts:

"Since 1973, when the Endangered Species Act took effect, seven animal species in North America have disappeared. Several hundred others once considered certain to die out continue to exist in the wild. A number of species, including the bald eagle and the Arctic peregrine falcon have been or are being taken off the priority-protection list."
"It‘s true, of course, that some environmental programs are muddled. For instance, the Endangered Species Act can have the unfair effect of penalizing landholders who discover rare creatures on their property, by prohibiting use of the land."
"the right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental regulations might occasionally amount to something other than wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost."

This tells us that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a success. The ESA has penalised some landholders (so has been expensive to them). 
It also tells us that right is afraid of the good news because it shows that Govt regulations could amount to success and that too at low cost.

So what is the right likely to say? They will not extol ESA since they are afraid of good news. They don't want to show that Govt regulations can be successful. They would criticize ESA because its success was due to costly regulations.

Hence option (C) makes the most sense.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Few ideas are more deeply entrenched in our political culture than

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 Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Few ideas are more deeply entrenched in our political culture than

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