Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorIdentifying Main Conclusions

Proponents of mandatory Scope 3 emissions reporting argue that requiring multinational corporations to disclose supply chain carbon footprints will force these firms to shift toward sustainable suppliers. However, because smaller overseas suppliers rarely possess the capital needed to audit their emissions accurately, complying with these reporting standards will force them out of supply chains, thereby consolidating market share among legacy suppliers regardless of their environmental practices. Consequently, mandatory disclosure mandates will fail to produce their intended reduction in global emissions. Regulators should therefore abandon supply chain reporting requirements in favor of direct border carbon adjustment taxes.

Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument above?

  1. A
    Mandatory Scope 3 emissions reporting will fail to achieve the global emissions reductions that its proponents anticipate.
  2. Regulators ought to discard supply chain emissions disclosure requirements and instead implement direct border carbon adjustment taxes.Cevap
  3. C
    Smaller overseas suppliers lack the necessary financial infrastructure to accurately measure and report their greenhouse gas emissions.
  4. D
    Requiring multinational corporations to disclose supply chain emissions forces them to select environmentally sustainable business partners.
  5. E
    Direct border carbon adjustment taxes are the most economically efficient policy tool available to combat global industrial pollution.

Cevap

The main conclusion of the argument is that regulators should abandon supply chain emissions reporting requirements in favor of direct border carbon adjustment taxes.
The argument builds a chain of reasoning: smaller suppliers cannot afford carbon audits, which leads to market consolidation among legacy suppliers, which means disclosure mandates will fail to reduce global emissions. Because of this failure, the author makes a final prescriptive recommendation that regulators should abandon disclosure requirements in favor of border carbon adjustment taxes. The recommendation is the ultimate point of the passage, supported by the preceding premises and intermediate conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into its core components.
Background: Proponents claim reporting forces shifts to green suppliers. Premise 1: Small suppliers cannot afford audits and will be eliminated. Premise 2: Market share will consolidate among legacy suppliers regardless of practices. Intermediate Conclusion: Reporting mandates will fail to reduce global emissions. Final Conclusion: Regulators should abandon reporting requirements in favor of border carbon adjustment taxes.
Identifying the logical flow clarifies which claim is supported by all other statements.
2
Apply the Therefore Test to distinguish the intermediate conclusion from the main conclusion.
Mandatory reporting will fail to reduce emissions; THEREFORE, regulators should abandon reporting in favor of border carbon taxes. (Logical direction flows from the failure of reporting to the policy recommendation.)
The final recommendation depends on the intermediate finding that reporting is ineffective.
3
Select the option that accurately paraphrases the final policy recommendation.
The option advocating the replacement of supply chain disclosure requirements with border carbon adjustment taxes matches the argument's final main conclusion.
This is the ultimate claim the author seeks to persuade the reader to accept.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions via Argument Hierarchy
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Identifying Main Conclusions

Bu konudan daha fazla soru