Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Boldface

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of volatile organic compounds has been wasted. The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling: despite the money spent, annual emissions of these pollutants have been increasing steadily. This evidence is far from adequate, however, since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built.

In the reasoning given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim.

The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.

The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.

The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is evidence used to support the reasoning's contention.

The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is evidence that has been used to support that position.

Solution

Understanding the Passage

Text from Passage	Analysis
"Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that"	What it says: Some people who oppose pollution control rules have made a specific argument Visualization: Critics Group $\rightarrow$ Makes claim about regulations What it does: Introduces an opposing viewpoint that the author will address Source: Author describing others' views
(Boldface 1) "the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of volatile organic compounds has been wasted"	What it says: The critics believe that all the money invested in the past 10 years to cut down harmful air pollution was thrown away with no benefit Visualization: 2014-2024: $\$50\text{ billion}$ spent on pollution control $\rightarrow$ Critics say: $\$0$ actual benefit = Complete waste What it does: States the specific claim made by critics that the author will evaluate Source: Critics' view (as reported by author)
"The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling: despite the money spent, annual emissions of these pollutants have been increasing steadily."	What it says: The critics point to seemingly strong proof - even though money was spent, pollution levels keep going up each year Visualization: 2014: 100 tons emissions $+$ $\$5\text{B}$ spent $\rightarrow$ 2019: 120 tons emissions $+$ $\$5\text{B}$ more spent $\rightarrow$ 2024: 140 tons emissions = Money wasted? What it does: Presents the critics' evidence and acknowledges it seems convincing Source: Author describing critics' evidence
"This evidence is far from adequate, however,"	What it says: The author disagrees - this proof is not sufficient or good enough Visualization: Critics' evidence quality: Poor/Insufficient $\neq$ Strong proof needed What it does: Signals the author's rejection of the critics' argument Source: Author's view
(Boldface 2) "since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built."	What it says: During the same 10-year period, many new factories and industrial plants that produce these same pollutants were constructed Visualization: 2014: 100 facilities $+$ 100 tons emissions $\rightarrow$ 2024: 180 facilities (80 new ones) $+$ 140 tons emissions $\rightarrow$ Without regulations: 180 tons expected What it does: Provides the reason why the critics' evidence is inadequate - it doesn't account for new pollution sources Source: Author's view

Overall Structure

The author is rejecting critics' claims by showing their evidence is flawed. The flow is: Critics claim $\rightarrow$ Critics' evidence $\rightarrow$ Author's counter-reasoning.

Main Conclusion: The critics' evidence that pollution-control spending has been wasted is inadequate.

Boldface Segments

Boldface 1: the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of volatile organic compounds has been wasted
Boldface 2: since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built

Boldface Understanding

Boldface 1:

Function: States the critics' main claim that the author wants to refute
Direction: Opposite to author's position (the author disagrees with this claim)

Boldface 2:

Function: Provides the author's reasoning for why the critics' evidence is insufficient
Direction: Same direction as author's position (supports the author's rejection of critics)

Structural Classification

Boldface 1:

Structural Role: A claim that the author opposes/challenges
Predicted Answer Patterns: "a claim that the author disputes," "a position that the author argues against"

Boldface 2:

Structural Role: Evidence/reasoning that supports the author's counter-argument
Predicted Answer Patterns: "evidence that supports the author's position," "a consideration that undermines the critics' argument"

Answer Choices Explained

The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim.

'The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false' - ✗ WRONG - The author doesn't try to prove the claim is definitively false, but rather argues that it's inadequately supported by evidence
'The second is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface is the author's own evidence against the critics, not evidence cited by critics to support their claim

The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.

'The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false' - ✗ WRONG - Same issue as Choice A; the author challenges the support for the claim rather than trying to prove it false
'The second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface isn't a position but rather evidence/reasoning that explains why the critics' evidence is inadequate

The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.

'The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence' - ✓ CORRECT - This accurately describes the critics' claim that the author argues lacks proper evidential support
'The second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface is evidence/reasoning, not a position that needs support

The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is evidence used to support the reasoning's contention.

'The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence' - ✓ CORRECT - Perfectly captures how the author views the critics' waste claim
'The second is evidence used to support the reasoning's contention' - ✓ CORRECT - The information about new facilities serves as evidence supporting the author's argument that critics' evidence is inadequate

The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is evidence that has been used to support that position.

'The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence' - ✓ CORRECT - Same accurate description as in choices C and D
'The second is evidence that has been used to support that position' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface doesn't support the critics' position; it actually undermines it by providing alternative explanation for rising emissions

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...