#11 - From 1880 to 2000 Britain’s economy grew fivefold, but

[Lsathelp101]

Why is the answer to this question E instead of C? How does E contradict the principle?

[Jon Denning]

Hey Lsathelp,

Thanks for the question, and welcome to the Forum!

This is a Cannot Be True question, which is a rare type that requires us to find an answer choice that is disproven/impossible ("incompatible with") based on the claims in the stimulus. So let's examine those claims and see what we're told.

The single sentence on offer tells us that in the 120 years from 1880 to 2000 Britain's economy grew fivefold, but CO2 emissions remained the same per capita over that timeframe. In other words, while the economy increased significantly, the amount of carbon dioxide released by individuals didn't increase at all.

So we're looking for an answer choice that can't be valid based on that fact: increased economy, no increase in individual/household CO2.

Let's apply that to the two answers you mention, (C) and (E).

Answer choice (C): This answer is incorrect because it could absolutely be true under the conditions in the stimulus! Remember, all we know is that the starting point CO2 per capita (in 1880) matched the ending point CO2 per capita (in 2000). So if economic growth initially increases CO2 emissions, but over time new technologies reduce those emissions, then those emissions could start and end at the same level, which fits nicely with what we're told.

Now, if the stimulus said it remained constant for those 120 years then (C) would be impossible (and thus correct), but since we don't know anything about changes during the interval—again, we only know beginning and end points—then (C) could be true and is therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (E): If economic growth, which Britain has clearly experienced, always increases household income/consumption, and if that always (inevitably) increases per capita CO2 emissions, then the per capita emissions from 1880 to 2000 would HAVE to go up.

Simply put, according to (E) economic growth would have guaranteed an emissions increase. And yet emissions did NOT increase. Conclusion? Answer choice (E) cannot be true. It's simply incompatible with the claims in the stimulus.


I hope that helps to clarify this one for you!

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

So I'm still a bit confused on this question. I eliminated C and D, b/c like the explanation above these two answers could be true based on the stimulus. So as I was going through the answer choice A and its incorrect b/c

(A); the stimulus says that Britain's economy grew for 120 years and that CO2 may not have increased per capita ("same), whereas A, generalizes that there was a decrease in per capita emissions of CO2 b/c of a lack of economic growth. Too me this seems likes it not at all supported by the claims in the stimulus. I reasoned that the language was too strong ("never) and that it was out of scope.

(B): I eliminated B, b/c this could be possible since, emissions of CO2, were the same per capita, we don't know how much they fluctuated.

(E): Both E and A, to me seem like polar opposites. So for E, it says that Britain experienced an increase in per capita emissions of carbon dioxide, but the stimulus tells us that green house gases, were the same per capita, NOT that they increased like E states. So this a/c would be inconsistent with the claim in the stimulus, but what about A?

Thankyou
Sarah

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there Sarah, welcome back. Take another look at answer A, and pay attention to some key words. "Never" jumps out at me. Since this is a Cannot Be True question, we want an answer that is impossible, something that cannot happen based on what we know about the stimulus.

Is it possible that there is never a decrease in per capita emissions during a period of growth? We didn't have one here, because per capita emissions stayed the same during the period of growth from 1880 to 2000. So, in this case there was no decrease. Could it be true that there is never such a decrease? Sure, why not? What does the stimulus tell us about other instances of growth compared to emissions? Since answer A is possible, it doesn't conflict with the stimulus, and so it's not what we are looking for.

Read carefully and you should see why A is not a good answer for this type of question. Let us know after that if you still need help. Keep at it!

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello Adam,

Okay, I think I see your point here. A could be possible b/c it could be possible CO2 levels stay the same when the economy is growing. Like in the stimulus it states that CO2 levels were the same for 120 years(per capita basis).

My error was that I was taking the "never" as a definitive statement that this was unsupported by the stimulus.

I see how E is the better a.c. b/c its an opposite answer given that the stimulus states that CO2 levels stayed the same.

Thankyou for your explanation
Sarah

[Adam Tyson]

I think you might be missing the point of a Cannot Be True question, Sarah. You aren't looking for an answer that is supported or unsupported. You're looking for an answer that is disproven. We could throw in an answer choice that says "My grandmother, who was born on Mars, is the President of Atlantis", and that would be a wrong answer because the stimulus doesn't make it impossible.

That "never" in answer A isn't the issue. It doesn't matter whether the stimulus supports something that strong or not. The only question is whether the stimulus disproves that statement. Since it doesn't, the answer is incorrect.

Let that concept guide you on CBT questions. Look only for what is made impossible by the stimulus.

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello Adam

With a.c. A I was saying that this could still be true, but E is the reversal of what the stimulus is saying. This is why A could still be true even it it mentions the word "never".


Thankyou
Sarah

[Adam Tyson]

Exactly right! Good job, Sarah.