Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earthandrsquo;s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billingsandrsquo; simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earthandrsquo;s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.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 > Experts anticipate that global atmospheric co...

Join the Discussion on the App

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO₂) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO₂ can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO₂ levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO₂ (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO₂ from the atmosphere. The level of CO₂ would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.

However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO₂, they also suggest that increased CO₂ would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO₂. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO₂ than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.

It is clear that the CO₂ fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO₂ to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO₂. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO₂ (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO₂ levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO₂ to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO₂ than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.

The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?

a)
They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.
b)
They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.
c)
They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.
d)
They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.
e)
They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.

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

FREE This question is part of

Test: Verbal Reasoning (Level 700) - 1

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon di...

The passage mentions that Patterson and Flint's research indicates that increased CO2 levels would lead to differential growth rates among plant species, with some plants (like certain weeds) benefiting more than important crops. This aligns with option (D).

Answered by Talent Skill Learning · View profile

Attention GMAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.

GMAT Focus Edition Mock Test Series 2024

Quantitative for GMAT

Crash Course for GMAT

Data Insights for GMAT

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about the conclusions drawn on the basis of the research on plant growth mentioned in the first paragraph of the passage?

View answer

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that the hypothesis mentioned in the first paragraph is not entirely accurate because it fails to take into account which one of the following in predicting the effects of increased vegetation on the rate of global warming?

View answer

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.Which one of the following best states the main point of the passage?

View answer

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.Which one of the following best describes the function of the last paragraph of the passage?

View answer

Direction: Read the following Passage and Answer the following Question.As urban landscapes continue to expand, the rise of vertical farming is becoming a crucial element in the quest for sustainable city living. Vertical farms, which grow crops in stacked layers within a controlled environment, offer a revolutionary approach to agriculture in urban settings. This innovative method of farming is not just about saving space; its about reimagining how we produce food in the face of growing environmental challenges.One of the key advantages of vertical farming is its minimal use of water and pesticides. Unlike traditional agriculture, which relies heavily on these resources, vertical farms use hydroponic systems that circulate water efficiently and eliminate the need for soil and large-scale pesticide use. This approach significantly reduces the environmental impact of farming.Another significant benefit is the reduction in food miles. Vertical farms can be established within urban areas, drastically cutting down the distance food travels from farm to consumer. This not only ensures fresher produce but also reduces transportation emissions, contributing to lower carbon footprints.However, vertical farming faces its own set of challenges. The initial setup and operational costs can be high, making it difficult for these farms to compete with traditional agriculture in terms of cost. Additionally, the energy requirements for maintaining controlled environments, such as lighting and temperature control, are substantial. Critics argue that unless renewable energy sources power these farms, they may not be as sustainable as they seem.Despite these challenges, the potential of vertical farming in reshaping urban agriculture remains immense. As technology advances, the efficiency of these farms is expected to improve, making them a vital component in the development of sustainable cities.Q.Which of the following concerns about vertical farming is mentioned in the passage?

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

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.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 Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.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 Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.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 Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?a)They will not increase the growth rates of most species of plants.b)They will inhibit the growth of most crops, thus causing substantial decreases in agricultural yields.c)They are unlikely to increase the growth rates of plants with lower photosynthetic efficiencies.d)They will increase the growth rates of certain species of plants more than the growth rates of other species of plants.e)They will not affect the photosynthetic rates of plants that currently have the highest photosynthetic efficiencies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.

Explore Courses for GMAT exam