What is the author's main conclusion?
Debates about climate change are sometimes framed as a contest between cutting emissions and adapting to a warmer world. Advocates of adaptation say that it is practical: sea walls, drought-resistant crops and better early warnings help real people now. Advocates of prevention say that adapting without cutting emissions merely postpones the problem. Each is right about the other's weakness and wrong about its own indispensability. Adaptation cannot cope with unlimited warming; some changes, such as the loss of coral reefs, cannot be adapted to at all. But prevention will not undo the warming that is already locked in. A sensible policy treats the two as complements, with attention to which dollar spent on either does more good at the margin.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. Adapting and preventing should be treated as complements, each judged by its marginal benefit
- Step 1: The last sentence treats the two as complements and asks which spending does more good at the margin.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "Adapting and preventing should be treated as complements, each judged by its marginal benefit".
Answer
Adapting and preventing should be treated as complements, each judged by its marginal benefit.
Why not the others: The author refuses the either-or choice and gives coral reefs as something adaptation cannot handle.
Practise more Climate policy.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.