Columnist: If governments really did get serious about slowing global warming, they would have to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Misc.

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Columnist: If governments really did get serious about slowing global warming, they would have to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel production, since use of these fuels is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. However, legislators would then need the courage to resist industry pressure, as the oil, coal, and natural gas industries would certainly protest any reduction in the subsidies, in order to maintain their profitability.

Which of the following is the main point of the columnist's argument?

If governments were to get serious about slowing global warming, legislators would need the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production.

Governments should eliminate subsidies for the production of fossil fuels that are major contributors to global warming.

The oil, coal, and natural gas industries will pressure governments not to reduce any subsidies for fossil fuel production.

If legislators have the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production, greenhouse gas emissions will diminish.

Attempts to maintain the profitability of the oil, coal, and natural gas industries will probably hinder governmental efforts to slow global warming.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
If governments really did get serious about slowing global warming, they would have to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel production, since use of these fuels is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.	What it says: If governments truly wanted to slow global warming, they'd need to stop giving money to fossil fuel companies because these fuels cause greenhouse gases What it does: Sets up a conditional scenario linking serious climate action to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies What it is: Author's premise about what serious climate action requires
However, legislators would then need the courage to resist industry pressure, as the oil, coal, and natural gas industries would certainly protest any reduction in the subsidies, in order to maintain their profitability.	What it says: Politicians would need courage to fight back against oil, coal, and gas companies who would definitely fight to keep their subsidies for profit reasons What it does: Adds a major obstacle to the climate action described earlier - industry resistance What it is: Author's claim about the political challenge

Argument Flow:

The columnist starts with what governments would need to do for serious climate action (eliminate fossil fuel subsidies), then immediately points out why this would be politically difficult (industry pushback). The argument moves from the technical requirement to the political reality.

Main Conclusion:

Getting serious about slowing global warming would require political courage from legislators to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies despite inevitable industry resistance.

Logical Structure:

The argument uses a conditional structure: IF governments want serious climate action, THEN they must eliminate subsidies, BUT this requires political courage because industries will fight back. The conclusion combines both the necessity (what must be done) and the challenge (what makes it difficult).

Prethinking:

Question type:

Main Point - This is asking us to identify the central message or conclusion the columnist is trying to convey in their entire argument.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes conditional claims about what governments would need to do (eliminate subsidies) and what obstacles they'd face (industry pressure requiring political courage).

Strategy

For main point questions, we need to step back and see the big picture. The columnist isn't just listing facts - they're making a broader point about the political reality of climate action. We should look for what overarching message connects both parts of the argument: the conditional requirement (eliminating subsidies) and the political obstacle (industry resistance).

Answer Choices Explained

If governments were to get serious about slowing global warming, legislators would need the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production.

This choice perfectly captures the main point by combining both key elements of the argument: the conditional requirement for serious climate action (eliminating subsidies) and the political challenge (needing courage against industry pressure). It follows the exact logical structure the columnist presents: IF governments get serious about climate action, THEN legislators need courage to resist industry pressure about subsidy reductions. This synthesizes the entire argument into one cohesive main point.

Governments should eliminate subsidies for the production of fossil fuels that are major contributors to global warming.

This choice sounds like a recommendation or prescription ("should eliminate subsidies"), but the columnist isn't making a normative argument about what governments should do. Instead, the columnist is making a conditional observation about what would be required IF governments got serious about climate action. The argument is descriptive, not prescriptive.

The oil, coal, and natural gas industries will pressure governments not to reduce any subsidies for fossil fuel production.

While this statement is supported by the argument ("the oil, coal, and natural gas industries would certainly protest"), it's just one supporting detail rather than the main point. The columnist mentions industry pressure as part of a larger argument about the political courage required for climate action, not as the central message.

If legislators have the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production, greenhouse gas emissions will diminish.

This reverses the logical flow of the argument. The columnist argues that IF governments get serious about climate action, THEN they need courage to resist pressure. This choice suggests that courage leads to emissions reduction, but the columnist doesn't make this causal claim - the focus is on what serious climate action would require, not what courage would achieve.

Attempts to maintain the profitability of the oil, coal, and natural gas industries will probably hinder governmental efforts to slow global warming.

This choice focuses on industry profitability hindering climate efforts, but the columnist's main point isn't about profitability per se. The argument is about the political courage required to overcome industry resistance when pursuing serious climate action. While industry profit motives are mentioned, they're not the central focus of the argument.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...