Source: Official Guide Revised GRE 2nd Ed. Part 9; Section 3; #7

2

Only with the discovery of an ozone hole

Only with the discovery of an ozone hole over Antarctica in 1985 did chemical companies finally relinquish their opposition to a ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which destroy ozone. The discovery suggested that strong political action to halt production of CFCs might be (i), and fortunately, the chemical industry no longer felt compelled to oppose such action: although companies had recently (ii) their research into CFC substitutes, studies they had initiated years earlier had produced (iii) results. Blank (i): imminent, imprudent, premature Blank (ii): corroborated, publicized, curtailed Blank (iii): encouraging, inclusive, unsurprising

1 Explanation

2

Gravatar Chris Lele, Magoosh Tutor

Dec 2, 2012 • Comment

Abhinav Dronamraju

Why can the answers not be corroborated and inconclusive?

Sep 13, 2016 • Reply

Cydney Seigerman, Magoosh Tutor

Hi Abhinav,

Happy to help. Overall, we want the second part of the sentence (the part after the colon) to explain the first part, which states that chemical industry no longer felt compelled to oppose the halt of the production of CFCs.

For (iii) the answer choice is "inclusive" which describes something that "includes much or everything" of what is being discussed. This word does not really fit the context of the sentence. On the other hand, finding "encourage" or positive results in studies on CFC substitutes could explain why the companies would not oppose banning CFCs themselves.

With that in mind, let's look at (ii). "While" is a shift word, meaning that the first part of the sentence with (ii) should contrast the second part of the sentence with (iii). Since (iii) discusses the success of the companies' earlier studies, it makes sense to say while or despite the fact that these companies have stopped their research into CFC alternatives, the earlier results were positive enough to be able to continue forward with the alternatives. And this fits with the idea that the companies do not oppose the ban. That's why "curtailed" works.

On the other hand, "corroborate" means "to give evidence for", which doesn't fit the context of the sentence. The research could give evidence that supports the use of CFC alternatives or the companies could use the research as evidence, but it doesn't quite make sense that the company would give evidence for the studies. Plus, this idea doesn't make the needed contrast with the second part of the sentence.

I hope this helps! :)

Sep 14, 2016 • Reply

Add Your Explanation

You must have a Magoosh account in order to leave an explanation.

Learn More About Magoosh