The passage implies that which of the

Wajid Mohammed

A) Company profits resulting from such innovations may be reinvested in that company with no guarantee that the company will continue to make further improvements in ecoefficiency

Passage says: greater profits may be turned into investment capital that could easily be
reinvested in old-style eco-inefficient industries.

Wrong: This answer is half right - half wrong
(Option A) Company profits resulting from such innovations may be reinvested in = (Passage) greater profits may be turned into investment capital

(Option A) 'old-style eco-inefficient industries' IS NOT SAME AS
(Passage) 'company with no guarantee that the company will continue to make further improvements in ecoefficiency'

Choice A would have been correct if we certainly know that old-style eco-inefficient industries have no goal to eco-efficient. There is a possibility that old-style inefficient industries are using investment to be eco-efficient.

B) Company growth fostered by cost savings from such innovations may allow that company to manufacture a greater number of products that will be used and discarded, thus worsening environmental stress.

Passage says:
Line 5 - 14: Peter Senge and Goran Carstedt see this development as laudable but
suggest that simply adopting ecoefficiency innovations could actually worsen environmental stresses in the future. Such innovations reduce production waste but do not alter the number of products manufactured nor the waste generated from their use and discard; indeed, most companies invest in ecoefficiency improvements in order to increase profits and growth.

This is just an EXPLANATION from Peter Senge and Goran Carstedt that how ecoefficiency innovations could actually worsen environmental stresses in the future. The relationship between 'production waste' and 'number of products manufactured + waste generated from their use and discard' is shown by keeping the later attribute constant. In short, this statement highlight that for same 'number of products manufactured + waste generated from their use and discard' the 'production waste' is reduced.

Line 19 - 23: Even a vastly more ecoefficient industrial system could, were it to grow much larger, generate more total waste and destroy more habitat and species than
would a smaller, less ecoefficient economy.

(Passage) Even a vastly more ecoefficient industrial system COULD, WERE it to grow much larger = (In Option B) Company growth fostered by cost savings from such innovations MAY ALLOW

(Passage) generate more total waste and destroy more habitat and species than
would a smaller, less ecoefficient economy = (In Option B) that company to manufacture a greater number of products that will be used and discarded, thus worsening environmental stress.

C) Wrong: Irrelevant
1) The passage is not bothered about companies that fail to realise the cost savings from eco-efficiency
2) The passage does not suggest that eco-efficiency failed.

D) Wrong: Irrelevant
No such comparison is made in passage

E) A company that meets its ecoefficiency goals is unlikely to invest its increased profits in the development of new and innovative ecoefficiency measures.

Passage: "........ businesses must develop a new systemic approach that reduces total material use and total accumulated waste. Focusing exclusively on ecoefficiency, which
offers a compelling business case according to established thinking, may distract companies from pursuing radically different products and business models......."

'radically different products and business models' NEED NOT HAVE TO BE 'development of new and innovative ecoefficiency'

May 29, 2017 • Comment

Nicholas LaBarbera

Please explain this answer choice more fully. I understand that this is an inference question, but I'm not sure how the answer can be B. when the passage explicitly states at line 9 that "Such innovations reduce production waste but do not alter the number of products manufactured..." The answer explanation given in the OG is: Lines 6-12 Strongly suggest that it is possible that the increased growth that may come from ecoefficiency may result in more products being manufactured, which may result in more waste as those products are discarded by consumers. I suppose what I am not understanding is how can answer B. be implied by the passage when the passage clearly states that these innovations DO NOT alter the number of products made. Even though it is not the innovation itself which may allow for more products to be manufactured, but rather the Company growth from the innovation which may spur the production of more products, it would still seem to me that B. is not a proper implication to make since the passage clearly states that the number of products is not altered - meaning it does not go up or down. Perhaps if they used the word lowered instead of altered I would have understood better or maybe I am missing something else entirely.

Dec 16, 2016 • Comment