Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by andquot;homogenic factors,andquot; i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niandntilde;o cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that andquot;whole earth measurementsandquot; are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, andquot;24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic originandquot;?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niandntilde;o cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Take a very commonplace, often discussed and ...

Join the Discussion on the App

Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?
Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?

a)
24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.
b)
There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.
c)
The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.
d)
One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.
e)
Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

GMAT Full Mock Test- 3

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de...

Scientists are basing their claims on global warning on rising ocean temperatures. One can tell if temperatures have in fact risen only by measuring them correctly.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author’s claim that, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years would be strengthened if the author

View answer

Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. In this passage the author is primarily interested in

View answer

Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. It can be inferred from the passage that

View answer

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow:No one thing over which we have control exerts so marked an influence upon our physical prosperity as the food we eat; and it is no exaggeration to say that well-selected and scientifically prepared food renders the partaker whose digestion permits of it being well assimilated, superior to his fellow-mortals in those qualities which will enable him to cope most successfully with life’s difficulties, and to fulfil the purpose of existence in the best and truest manner. The brain and other organs of the body are affected by the quality of the blood which nourishes them, and since the blood is made from the food eaten, it follows that the use of poor food will result in poor blood, poor muscles, poor brains, and poor bodies, incapable of first-class work in any capacity. Very few persons, however, ever stop to inquire what particular foods are best adapted to the manufacture of good blood and the maintenance of perfect health; but whatever gratifies the palate or is most conveniently obtained, is cooked and eaten without regard to its dietetic value.The subject of diet and its relation to human welfare, is one deserving of the most careful consideration. It should be studied as a science, to enable us to choose such materials as are best adapted to our needs under the varying circumstances of climate, occupation, and the numerous changing conditions of the human system; as an art, that we may become so skilled in the preparation of the articles elected as to make them both appetizing and healthful. The mechanical mixing of ingredients is not sufficient to secure good results; and many of the failures attributed to “poor material,” “bad luck,” and various other subterfuges to which cooks ignorance of scientific principles. The common method of blindly following recipes, with no knowledge of “the reason why,” can hardly fail to be often productive of unsatisfactory results, which to the uninformed seem quite inexplicable.Cookery, when based upon scientific principles, ceases to be the difficult problem it so often appears. Cause and effect follow each other as certainly in the preparation of food as in other things; and with knowledge of the underlying principles, and faithfulness in carrying out the necessary details, failure becomes almost an impossibility. There is no department of human activity where applied science offers greater advantages than in that of cookery.Q.2. Which ofthe following is not likely to be a beneficial effect ofscientifically prepared food on humans?

View answer

Psychologist: People tend to make certain cognitive errors when they predict how a given event would affect their future happiness. But people should not necessarily try to rid themselves of this tendency. After all, in a visual context, lines that are actually parallel often appear to people as if they converge. If a surgeon offered to restructure your eyes and visual cortex so that parallel lines would no longer ever appear to converge, it would not be reasonable to take the surgeon up on the offer.The psychologist’s argument does which one of the following?

View answer

Top Courses for GMATView all

GMAT Focus Edition Mock Test Series 2024

Quantitative for GMAT

Crash Course for GMAT

Data Insights for GMAT

100 RCs for GMAT

Top Courses for GMAT

View all

Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?a)24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin.b)There is a greenhouse effect that is exacerbated by homogenic factors.c)The ozone hole is increasing due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like.d)One can determine if mean oceanic temperatures have risen globally in the last several decades only if measurements of ocean temperatures are precise.e)Hot spots, such as the El Niño cycle, should not be counted as a factor in the greenhouse effect.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.

Explore Courses for GMAT exam