The effects of climate change are coming into sharper focus: because of increased global temperatures, sea levels are rising, plants...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Mock
...
...
Post a Query
The effects of climate change are coming into sharper focus: because of increased global temperatures, sea levels are rising, plants are blooming earlier in the spring, and water supplies are declining. That the global climate may reach a dangerous turning point, threatening food supplies, has become a real possibility.
The best way to reduce this danger is to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But success requires that all major greenhouse-gas-emitting countries, with their divergent, often conflicting interests, cooperate for several decades in a sustained effort to develop and deploy new technology that produces much lower emissions. Incentives to drop out of this effort, thereby avoiding the high cost of emission controls, will be strong. A more feasible solution is for governments to promote an international cooperative study and the eventual implementation of geoengineering the deliberate manipulation of Earth's atmosphere to counteract the warming effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.
This must be an international effort, because unilateral geoengineering could have detrimental consequences. The discovery of the cooling effects of volcanic emissions has suggested a means of geoengineering that is feasible for any reasonably technologically advanced nation and relatively inexpensive. For as little as a few billion dollars, a nation could emulate these volcanic effects by deliberately putting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere. Without proactive international cooperation, a country may conclude that global warming has become so harmful to its interests that it should unilaterally engage in geoengineering without considering the effects on other countries, effects that could be catastrophic.
Thus, governments must support an international program of scientific research that would help on three fronts:
- transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks;
- secure funding and political cover for essential but controversial experiments that are conducted by the world's leading scientists and are evaluated in a fully transparent fashion;
- craft norms for the testing and possible deployment of geoengineering technologies.
Scientists could be influential in creating these norms, just as nuclear scientists framed options on nuclear testing and influenced pivotal government decisions during the Cold War.
Ques. 1/4
The passage indicates that, at the time the passage was written, discussion of geoengineering tended
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| The effects of climate change are coming into sharper focus: because of increased global temperatures, sea levels are rising, plants are blooming earlier in the spring, and water supplies are declining. | What it says: Climate change is becoming clearer - warmer temperatures cause sea levels to rise, early plant blooming, and less water. What it does: Establishes the problem and provides concrete examples Source/Type: Presented as factual observations Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - establishes the foundation Visualization: Think of a thermometer rising from 60°F to 65°F globally, causing ocean levels to rise 3 inches, flowers blooming in February instead of March, and reservoirs dropping 20%. Reading Strategy Insight: Notice how the author immediately gives concrete examples after the abstract phrase "coming into sharper focus" - this is helpful simplification! |
| That the global climate may reach a dangerous turning point, threatening food supplies, has become a real possibility. | What it says: Climate change could reach a dangerous level that threatens our food. What it does: Escalates the stakes from the previous examples to a more serious consequence Source/Type: Author's assessment of scientific consensus Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 1 by showing the ultimate consequence of those effects (rising seas, early blooming, declining water) - they threaten food production. Visualization: If sea levels rise and water supplies decline → farms flood or lack irrigation → food shortages in grocery stores Reading Strategy Insight: This connects the dots from sentence 1 - the author is showing WHY those climate effects matter. |
| The best way to reduce this danger is to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. | What it says: To solve this problem, we should reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. What it does: Introduces the "obvious" solution to the problem Source/Type: Author's statement of conventional wisdom Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly responds to the "dangerous turning point" mentioned in sentence 2. Classic problem → solution structure. Visualization: Imagine cutting factory emissions from 1000 tons CO2/day to 200 tons CO2/day to prevent the food supply threats. Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - this is straightforward logical flow: Problem established → obvious solution presented. No new complexity added! |
| But success requires that all major greenhouse-gas-emitting countries, with their divergent, often conflicting interests, cooperate for several decades in a sustained effort to develop and deploy new technology that produces much lower emissions. | What it says: However, this solution is very difficult because all big polluting countries need to work together for decades despite having different goals. What it does: Explains why the "best" solution from sentence 3 is impractical Source/Type: Author's analysis of political/practical challenges Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly challenges the solution in sentence 3. The "But" signals: "That solution sounds good, but here's why it won't work." Visualization: Picture trying to get USA, China, India, and 20 other major countries to agree on the same expensive plan for 30+ years when they compete economically. Reading Strategy Insight: This is setting up the need for an alternative solution. The pattern is: Problem → Obvious Solution → Why Obvious Solution Won't Work → [Author's Better Solution Coming] |
| Incentives to drop out of this effort, thereby avoiding the high cost of emission controls, will be strong. | What it says: Countries will be tempted to quit this cooperation to avoid paying high costs. What it does: Reinforces why the emissions-cutting approach won't work Source/Type: Author's prediction based on economic logic Connection to Previous Sentences: This restates the problem from sentence 4 in simpler terms. Sentence 4: "divergent, conflicting interests" = Sentence 5: "incentives to drop out" Visualization: If emission controls cost Country A $100 billion but Country B quits and pays $0, Country A will want to quit too. Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is NOT new complexity! The author is just restating sentence 4's complex idea in economic terms we can easily understand. |
| A more feasible solution is for governments to promote an international cooperative study and the eventual implementation of geoengineering the deliberate manipulation of Earth's atmosphere to counteract the warming effect of greenhouse-gas emissions. | What it says: A better solution is for governments to work together on studying and eventually using geoengineering - deliberately changing Earth's atmosphere to counteract warming. What it does: Introduces the author's preferred alternative solution Source/Type: Author's main argument/recommendation Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the "better solution" that the previous sentences set up. The logic: Sentences 3-5 showed emission cuts won't work → NOW the author presents the alternative. Visualization: Instead of reducing CO2 from 1000 to 200 tons (hard to coordinate), imagine putting reflective particles in the sky to block some sunlight. Reading Strategy Insight: This is the author's main thesis! Everything before this was setup. The passage is now pivoting to explain and defend geoengineering. What We Know So Far: Climate change threatens food, emission cuts won't work due to cooperation problems, geoengineering is the better alternative |
| This must be an international effort, because unilateral geoengineering could have detrimental consequences. | What it says: Geoengineering must involve multiple countries because if one country does it alone, bad things could happen. What it does: Establishes a key constraint/requirement for the proposed solution Source/Type: Author's logical reasoning about consequences Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 6 by addressing an obvious question: "If geoengineering is easier than emission cuts, why can't one country just do it alone?" Visualization: If only the USA puts reflective particles over North America, it might change rain patterns and cause droughts in Mexico and Canada. Reading Strategy Insight: The author is anticipating reader questions and addressing them systematically. This shows careful reasoning, not random complexity. |
| The discovery of the cooling effects of volcanic emissions has suggested a means of geoengineering that is feasible for any reasonably technologically advanced nation and relatively inexpensive. | What it says: Scientists discovered that volcanic emissions cool the planet, and this gives us an idea for geoengineering that most developed countries can afford and implement. What it does: Provides the scientific basis and feasibility evidence for geoengineering Source/Type: Scientific discovery presented as established fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This supports sentence 6's claim that geoengineering is "more feasible" by explaining the scientific foundation and practical accessibility. Visualization: When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it cooled Earth by 1°F for 2 years. Countries can mimic this effect artificially. Reading Strategy Insight: The author is building credibility for geoengineering by showing it's based on observed natural phenomena, not just theory. |
| For as little as a few billion dollars, a nation could emulate these volcanic effects by deliberately putting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere. | What it says: A country could copy volcanic cooling effects by putting reflective particles in the upper atmosphere for only a few billion dollars. What it does: Provides specific cost and method details for the geoengineering approach Source/Type: Technical/economic specifications Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives concrete details for the "volcanic emissions" concept from sentence 8. It's like the author saying: "Here's exactly how and how much." Visualization: $3 billion to launch aircraft that spray reflective particles at 50,000 feet altitude, vs. $100+ billion for each country to restructure their entire economy around emission cuts. Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident - this is just filling in details, not adding new concepts! The author is making geoengineering concrete and showing its cost advantage. |
| Without proactive international cooperation, a country may conclude that global warming has become so harmful to its interests that it should unilaterally engage in geoengineering without considering the effects on other countries, effects that could be catastrophic. | What it says: If countries don't cooperate proactively on geoengineering, one country might get so hurt by climate change that it does geoengineering alone, which could catastrophically harm other countries. What it does: Explains the urgency and danger of not implementing international geoengineering cooperation Source/Type: Author's warning/prediction Connection to Previous Sentences: This reinforces sentence 7's point about international cooperation being necessary. It answers: "What happens if we ignore that requirement?" Visualization: If rising seas flood 30% of Bangladesh, they might unilaterally cool their region, accidentally causing massive droughts in India. Reading Strategy Insight: The author is using consequences to motivate action. This connects the cooperative requirement (sentence 7) to an urgent timeline. |
| Thus, governments must support an international program of scientific research that would help on three fronts: | What it says: Therefore, governments need to support international research that helps in three ways: [list coming] What it does: Transitions to specific recommendations based on the argument built so far Source/Type: Author's policy prescription Connection to Previous Sentences: "Thus" signals this is the logical conclusion from everything before. The argument was: geoengineering is better → needs international cooperation → without it, dangerous unilateral action → THEREFORE, here's what to do. Visualization: Think of this as the action plan that follows from all the reasoning above. Reading Strategy Insight: "Thus" tells us we're moving from analysis to recommendations. The complex argument phase is ending; implementation details are beginning. |
| (1) transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks; | What it says: First goal: Change vague talk about geoengineering into specific analysis of actual risks. What it does: Provides first specific objective for the research program Source/Type: Author's policy recommendation Connection to Previous Sentences: This addresses the need for the international cooperation mentioned in sentences 6-7 by starting with organized risk assessment. Visualization: Instead of general debates about "Is geoengineering good or bad?", have specific studies like "What are the exact rainfall changes from X particles in Y region?" Reading Strategy Insight: The author wants to move from abstract debate to concrete analysis - this shows practical thinking. |
| (2) secure funding and political cover for essential but controversial experiments that are conducted by the world's leading scientists and are evaluated in a fully transparent fashion; | What it says: Second goal: Get money and political protection for important but controversial experiments, done by top scientists with full transparency. What it does: Addresses the practical and political challenges of geoengineering research Source/Type: Author's policy recommendation Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on point (1) - after assessing risks, you need actual experiments, but experiments need funding and political support. Visualization: International coalition funds $500 million for atmospheric tests by MIT/Oxford scientists with all data publicly available, despite public controversy. Reading Strategy Insight: The author acknowledges political reality - even good science needs protection from political backlash. |
| (3) craft norms for the testing and possible deployment of geoengineering technologies. | What it says: Third goal: Create rules/standards for testing and potentially using geoengineering technologies. What it does: Addresses the governance framework needed for geoengineering Source/Type: Author's policy recommendation Connection to Previous Sentences: This completes the logical sequence: (1) assess risks → (2) do experiments → (3) create rules for actual use. Visualization: Develop international treaties like "No geoengineering without 70% of major nations agreeing" or "Maximum 2-year pilot programs before review." Reading Strategy Insight: Notice the logical progression in the three points - this isn't random complexity but a sensible sequence. |
| Scientists could be influential in creating these norms, just as nuclear scientists framed options on nuclear testing and influenced pivotal government decisions during the Cold War. | What it says: Scientists can help create these rules, similar to how nuclear scientists helped shape nuclear testing policies during the Cold War. What it does: Provides historical precedent to support the feasibility of scientist involvement in policy Source/Type: Historical analogy used as supporting evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: This supports point (3) by showing it's been done before successfully. The author is saying "This isn't unprecedented - here's proof it can work." Visualization: Just as nuclear physicists advised JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis, atmospheric scientists could advise the UN on geoengineering treaties. Reading Strategy Insight: The author ends with reassurance - this ambitious plan has historical precedent. This reduces anxiety about feasibility rather than adding new complexity. Final Summary - What We Know: Climate change threatens food supplies, emission cuts are too hard to coordinate internationally, geoengineering is more feasible and cheaper, but it needs international cooperation to avoid catastrophic unilateral action, so governments should fund research to assess risks, conduct experiments, and create governance rules, with scientists playing a key advisory role as they did during the Cold War. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To argue that governments should support international cooperation on geoengineering research as a more practical solution to climate change than trying to coordinate emission cuts across all major countries.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by systematically showing why the obvious solution won't work and presenting a better alternative:
- First, the author establishes that climate change is a serious problem that threatens food supplies through concrete examples like rising sea levels and declining water supplies.
- Next, they present the obvious solution of cutting emissions but immediately explain why this won't work due to the impossibility of getting all major countries to cooperate for decades when they have conflicting interests.
- Then, they introduce geoengineering as a more feasible alternative, explaining that it's based on scientific observations of volcanic cooling effects, is relatively inexpensive, but still requires international cooperation to avoid catastrophic consequences from unilateral action.
- Finally, they provide a specific three-part action plan for governments to support international geoengineering research, ending with historical precedent from nuclear scientists during the Cold War to show this approach can work.
Main Point:
Governments should fund international research programs on geoengineering because it offers a more practical path to address climate change than trying to coordinate emission cuts across countries, but it must be done cooperatively to prevent dangerous unilateral action.
Question Analysis:
This question asks what the passage suggests about the state of geoengineering discussions at the time the passage was written. We need to identify what the author believes was problematic or lacking in existing discussions about geoengineering.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
The passage analysis reveals that the author's main thesis is advocating for structured international cooperation on geoengineering research. Looking at the three-part action plan the author proposes:
- Transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks
- Secure funding and political cover for essential experiments
- Craft norms for testing and possible deployment
This structure tells us what the author thinks is currently missing from geoengineering discussions. The key insight comes from point (1), where the author wants to "transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks." The word "transform" indicates that current discussions are NOT focused assessments of concrete risks.
Prethinking:
The author's call to "transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks" directly implies that existing discussions lacked this focused assessment. If discussions were already focused on concrete risks, there would be no need to transform them. The passage structure shows the author building toward solutions for inadequate current approaches to geoengineering discussion.
Answer Choices Explained
A
to take for granted that international efforts will eventually successfully reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage actually argues the opposite - that international emission reduction efforts will fail due to conflicting interests
• The author states "success requires that all major greenhouse-gas-emitting countries...cooperate" but immediately explains why this won't happen
• The entire premise of recommending geoengineering is that emission reduction cooperation is unrealistic
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did the author say emission reduction is the "best way"?
→ Yes, but they immediately explain why the "best way" is impractical, making geoengineering more feasible
2. Doesn't the passage mention international cooperation?
→ Yes, but for geoengineering research, not for emission reductions which the author sees as doomed
• The passage actually argues the opposite - that international emission reduction efforts will fail due to conflicting interests
• The author states "success requires that all major greenhouse-gas-emitting countries...cooperate" but immediately explains why this won't happen
• The entire premise of recommending geoengineering is that emission reduction cooperation is unrealistic
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did the author say emission reduction is the "best way"?
→ Yes, but they immediately explain why the "best way" is impractical, making geoengineering more feasible
2. Doesn't the passage mention international cooperation?
→ Yes, but for geoengineering research, not for emission reductions which the author sees as doomed
B
to be uninformed by current science
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage presents geoengineering as scientifically grounded, based on "discovery of the cooling effects of volcanic emissions"
• The author advocates for experiments "conducted by the world's leading scientists"
• No evidence suggests discussions ignore current science - the author wants more scientific research, not basic scientific awareness
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the author call for more scientific research?
→ Yes, but this means advancing science further, not catching up to existing science
2. Are current discussions lacking scientific rigor?
→ The passage suggests they lack focus on concrete risks, not scientific foundation
• The passage presents geoengineering as scientifically grounded, based on "discovery of the cooling effects of volcanic emissions"
• The author advocates for experiments "conducted by the world's leading scientists"
• No evidence suggests discussions ignore current science - the author wants more scientific research, not basic scientific awareness
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the author call for more scientific research?
→ Yes, but this means advancing science further, not catching up to existing science
2. Are current discussions lacking scientific rigor?
→ The passage suggests they lack focus on concrete risks, not scientific foundation
C
to disregard questions of what norms should govern the testing and possible deployment of geonengineering technologies
Why It's Wrong:
• While the author does call for crafting norms, this is presented as one of three goals, not the primary issue
• The emphasis is much stronger on the need for "focused assessment of concrete risks" (goal #1)
• The passage doesn't suggest discussions actively disregard norms questions, just that comprehensive governance frameworks need development
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Isn't crafting norms one of the three goals mentioned?
→ Yes, but goal #1 about transforming discussion gets primary emphasis and directly indicates what's currently wrong
2. Doesn't the passage emphasize governance issues?
→ It emphasizes the need for future governance, not that current discussions ignore governance entirely
• While the author does call for crafting norms, this is presented as one of three goals, not the primary issue
• The emphasis is much stronger on the need for "focused assessment of concrete risks" (goal #1)
• The passage doesn't suggest discussions actively disregard norms questions, just that comprehensive governance frameworks need development
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Isn't crafting norms one of the three goals mentioned?
→ Yes, but goal #1 about transforming discussion gets primary emphasis and directly indicates what's currently wrong
2. Doesn't the passage emphasize governance issues?
→ It emphasizes the need for future governance, not that current discussions ignore governance entirely
D
to be unduly influenced by prejudice against geoengineering
Why It's Wrong:
• No evidence in the passage suggests prejudice against geoengineering
• The author advocates FOR geoengineering as a solution, suggesting it's not widely accepted yet
• The problem identified is lack of focused assessment, not bias against the concept
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Does the author suggest geoengineering faces political challenges?
→ Yes, but these are practical cooperation challenges, not prejudice against the concept itself
2. Aren't experiments described as "controversial"?
→ Controversial doesn't mean people are prejudiced - it means the topic generates legitimate debate
• No evidence in the passage suggests prejudice against geoengineering
• The author advocates FOR geoengineering as a solution, suggesting it's not widely accepted yet
• The problem identified is lack of focused assessment, not bias against the concept
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Does the author suggest geoengineering faces political challenges?
→ Yes, but these are practical cooperation challenges, not prejudice against the concept itself
2. Aren't experiments described as "controversial"?
→ Controversial doesn't mean people are prejudiced - it means the topic generates legitimate debate
E
not to involve a focused assessment of the concrete risks of geoengineering
Why It's Right:
• Directly supported by the author's call to "transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks"
• The word "transform" explicitly indicates current discussions lack this focused assessment
• This is the first and primary goal mentioned in the three-part action plan
• Aligns with the passage's emphasis on moving from general discussion to specific, practical analysis
Key Evidence: "Thus, governments must support an international program of scientific research that would help on three fronts: (1) transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks"
• Directly supported by the author's call to "transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks"
• The word "transform" explicitly indicates current discussions lack this focused assessment
• This is the first and primary goal mentioned in the three-part action plan
• Aligns with the passage's emphasis on moving from general discussion to specific, practical analysis
Key Evidence: "Thus, governments must support an international program of scientific research that would help on three fronts: (1) transform discussion about geoengineering into focused assessment of concrete risks"
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More