send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Read the passage below and answer the following questions. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed in 1987 by more than 150 nations, has attained its short-term goals: it has decreased the rate of increase in amounts of most ozone-depleting chemicals reaching the atmosphere and has even reduced the atmospheric levels of some of them. The projection that the ozone layer will substantially recover from ozone depletion by 2050 is based on the assumption that the protocol’s regulations will be strictly followed. Yet there is considerable evidence of violations, particularly in the form of the release of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), which are commonly used in the refrigeration, heating, and air conditioning industries. These violations reflect industry attitudes; for example, in the United States, 48 percents of respondents in a recent survey of subscribers to Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration News, an industry trade journal, said that they did not believe that CFC’s damage the ozone layer. Moreover, some in the industry apparently do not want to pay for CFC substitutes, which can run five times the cost of CFC’s. Consequently, a black market in imported illicit CFC’s has grown. Estimates of the contraband CFC trade range from 10,000 to 22,000 tons a year, with most of the CFC’s originating in India and China, whose agreements under the Protocol still allow them to produce CFC’s. In fact, the United States Customs Service reports that CFC-12 is a contraband problem second only to illicit drugs.
The author of the passage compares the smuggling of CFC’s to the illicit drug trade most likely for which of the following reasons?
To qualify a previous claim
To emphasize the extent of a problem
To provide an explanation for an earlier assertion
To suggest that the illicit CFC trade, likely the illicit drug trade, will continue to increase
- Option 1: To qualify a previous claim
The author might clarify or specify details related to a prior statement but it's not relevant here.
- Option 2: To emphasize the extent of a problem
The author uses the drug trade comparison to highlight how significant the CFC smuggling issue has become, ranking it second to a well-known and serious problem. This highlights severity and urgency.
- Option 3: To provide an explanation for an earlier assertion
The aim would be to justify a prior claim, but the comparison doesn't serve as an explanation here.
- Option 4: To suggest that the illicit CFC trade, likely the illicit drug trade, will continue to increase
This suggests future growth trends, which isn't the main point of the comparison in this context.
- Correct Answer: Option 2: To emphasize the extent of a problem
By: Munesh Kumari ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses