0

RC Practice Test - 3

Attempted 0/12 Correct 0 Score 0

Directions: Which of the following is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in capitals as used in the passage?

BLANKET

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. Quilt

  2. Surround

  3. Sheet

  4. Combine

  5. Protect


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

'Blanket' as used in the passage means to surround. Most of the countries would have to be surrounded by wind turbines.

Directions: Which of the following is most OPPOSITE in meaning to the word given in capitals as used in the passage?

FRAUGHT

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. Distressful

  2. Amicable

  3. Disagreement

  4. Desirable

  5. Anxious


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

 In the passage, 'fraught' means tense. Hence, 'amicable' is most opposite in meaning to it.

In the passage, which challenge according to the author is not being taken seriously in the phrase "we are not taking this challenge seriously”?

A. Cutting the carbon emissions to a scale of 2.5 times in the next decade. B. The challenge of locating new fossil fuel reserves since the existing ones are depleting at a fast rate. C. To carry out technological innovations for developing non-carbon based energy resources.

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. Only C

  2. A and C

  3. Only B

  4. A and B

  5. None of these


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The passage mentions, "Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution." The requirement of a technological revolution is not being taken up seriously.

Directions: Which of the following is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in capitals as used in the passage?

COUNTS

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. Numbers

  2. Matters

  3. Calculations

  4. Values

  5. Attributes


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

Here 'counts' is referring to the two contexts or matters given to reduce global warming.

Directions: Which of the following is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in capitals as used in the passage?

MASSIVE

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. Light

  2. Large

  3. Insignificant

  4. Short

  5. Unreasonable


Correct Option: C

Directions: Which of the following is the most OPPOSITE in meaning to the word given in capitals as used in the passage?

REASONABLE

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. Fair

  2. Illogical

  3. Irrational

  4. Inadequate

  5. Considerable


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

'Reasonable' means 'fair' or 'adequate'. So, opposite will be inadequate.

According to the author, why are the international negotiations barely a solution to the problem of global warming?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. Many countries fail to confine to the carbon-cut norms as set in these negotiations.

  2. These negotiations emphasise on the amount of carbon to be cut and not on the ways in which it can be done.

  3. Recent research on the carbon-cut methods is overlooked by the politicians.

  4. Such negotiations produce dominance of powerful countries over the others, thereby hampering their industrial development.

  5. None of these


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

It is mentioned in the 1st line of the 4th paragraph, "Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so".

Directions: Which of the following is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in capitals as used in the passage?

CUTTING

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. Slicing

  2. Breaking

  3. Reducing

  4. Tearing

  5. Interrupting


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

As per the passage, 'cutting' refers to the reduction of carbon emissions.

Which of the following is true in the context of the passage?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. Many countries are refraining from taking part in global negotiations to check global warming.

  2. There has been no improvement in carbon emissions world over.

  3. Technological advancement through research is the need of the hour in order to meet the directed goal of combating global warming.

  4. Most countries in the world are well equipped to produce sufficient non-carbon based energy sources.

  5. All the above statements are true.


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

"Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution". These lines indicate that option 3 is the correct answer.  

Which of the following is/are suggested in the passage by which global warming can be reduced?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. To make the approach towards global warming completely free from political intervention

  2. By making non-carbon based energy methods as efficient and cost effective as the fossil fuels

  3. To force every country to confine to stricter terms of carbon emissions

  4. To avoid international negotiation on carbon cuts until the technological research comes out with a scalable and stable solution

  5. All of the above


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

The lines 'we decide to reduce carbon dioxide emissions ........... non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000' suggest the answer to be option 2.  

Which of the following is intended in the given passage?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. To suggest the ways in which alternate forms of energy can reduce climate change

  2. To explain that the current technological developments are flawed and thus, fail to control the climate change

  3. To explain that the stable carbon emissions are impossible to achieve in this century

  4. To suggest to the policy makers to invest in research rather than futile negotiations

  5. None of these


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

The last line of the passage sums up the main idea of the passage. The passage intends to highlight the importance of investing in research to find new technologies to deal with carbon emissions.

Which of the following is not true in the context of the given passage?

A. Non carbon fuels are too expensive so they should not be used. B. Political ignorance is one of the main reasons behind the inappropriate approach to combat global warming. C. The generation of energy from non-carbon sources has to be increased for significant reduction in global warming.

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.

  1. Only A

  2. Only C

  3. Only A and C

  4. Only B and C

  5. A, B and C


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

‘Should not’ negates the essence of the passage.

- Hide questions