OG

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:56 pm
Location: hyderabad
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

OG

by naveen451 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:10 pm
(The following is based on material written in 1996.)
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed in 1987 by more than
150 nations, has attained its short-term goals: it has decreased the rate of increase in amounts of
most ozone-depleting chemicals reaching the atmosphere and has even reduced the atmospheric
levels of some of them. The projection that the ozone layer will substantially recover from ozone
depletion by 2050 is based on the assumption that the protocol's regulations will be strictly
followed. Yet there is considerable evidence of violations, particularly in the form of the release of
ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), which are commonly used in the refrigeration,
heating, and air conditioning industries. These violation reflect industry attitudes; for example, in
the United States, 48 percents of respondents in a recent survey of subscribers to Air Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration News, and industry trade journal, said that they did not believe that
CFC's damage the ozone layer. Moreover, some in the industry apparently do not want to pay for
CFC substitutes, which can run five times the cost of CFC's. Consequently, a black market in
imported illicit CFC's has grown. Estimates of the contraband CFC trade range from 10,000 to
22,000 tons a year, with most of the CFC's originating in India and China, whose agreements
under the Protocol still allow them to produce CFC's. In fact, the United States Customs Service
reports that CFC-12 is a contraband problem second only to illicit drugs

The author of the passage compares the smuggling of CFC's to the illicit drug trade most
likely for which of the following reasons?
(A) To qualify a previous claim
(B) To emphasize the extent of a problem
(C) To provide an explanation for an earlier assertion
(D) To suggest that the illicit CFC trade, likely the illicit drug trade, will continue to increase
(E) To suggest that the consequences of a relatively little-knows problem are as serious as
those of a well-known one

OA IS B
Source: — Reading Comprehension |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 8:46 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by jonathan123456 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:18 am
(A) To qualify a previous claim
Illicit drug does not qualify anything
(B) To emphasize the extent of a problem
Its compared to drug trade industry
(C) To provide an explanation for an earlier assertion
Illicit drug trade is no explanation
(D) To suggest that the illicit CFC trade, likely the illicit drug trade, will continue to increase
Doesnt suggest anywhere that its going to increase. Seems a long shot
(E) To suggest that the consequences of a relatively little-knows problem are as serious as
those of a well-known one
No where suggested that consequence would be bad / good etc. Eliminated

SO OA B