According to the passage, why might the intervention have to be maintained for decades?
Proposals to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight, such as releasing reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, are often attacked as dangerous distractions. The danger is real: the intervention could change rainfall patterns, and it would have to be maintained for decades or the warming it had masked would return quickly. The distraction charge is harder to assess. Some argue that the mere existence of an emergency option will reduce the pressure to cut emissions. But others note that people who take out insurance do not stop locking their doors. It is at least conceivable that a technology held in reserve could make the case for cutting emissions more urgent, not less, by making the alternative more vivid. The matter cannot be settled by assertion, only by research into how people actually respond.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. Because the warming it had masked would quickly return if it stopped
- Step 1: The passage says it would have to be maintained 'or the warming it had masked would return quickly'.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "Because the warming it had masked would quickly return if it stopped".
Answer
Because the warming it had masked would quickly return if it stopped.
Why not the others: Time to reach the atmosphere, changes in rainfall, falling emissions and public demand are not given.
Practise more Environment and technology.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.