请教OG13阅读第7题，ecoefficiency那篇文章

yudc2009

请教一下0G13阅读第2篇，ecoefficiency那篇文章的最后一题。答案是B。但A和E的错误在哪里呢。OG解释说文章没有表示公司会abandon这个ecoffeiciency,所以AE错，但是我从选项看觉得这两项也没有表达abandon的意思啊，A说公司不一定会make further improvements，E说公司不一定会将利润投入到 the development of new and innovative ecoefficiency measures。我觉得这其中没有abandon的意思     多谢！

原文借用帖子http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_RC/thread-396154-1-1.html?SearchText=ecoefficiency

yudc2009

yudc2009

savageprince

和LZ有同样的疑惑。但是个人认为A中说be reinvested in THAT company太绝对，文中说的是in old-style eco-inefficient industries. 而且A中的with no garantee that the company will continue to ake further improvements in ecoefficiency. 意思说知道不一定会在ecoefficiency上有further improvements还是要投资。这个意思文中确实没有提到，不知道OG解释中说abondon是什么意思。E的问题，个人认为，在于文章说通过发展eco得来的profit可能会被投资到不eco的行业，但是这并不是说一定不会投资到eco的行业，A可能会导致B，不等于A一定不会导致非B.

Open to discuss, 欢迎NN拍砖~

nancy716

我觉得这道题的题干中possible consequence中consequence的意思是后果，也就是代表了一种负向态度，A选项是一个正态度选项所以不选，对于consequence的隐含意义在第六题题干里也有体现，我是这么觉得的哈

纪小公举

翻出这道老题，自己做的时候被E选项混淆了，但是不是很理解OG的解释，自己理解了一下，是这样的：

原文最后一句说这些公司说不太可能再追求不同的产品和商业模式，这个产品和商业模式也就是前文说的new approach。
根据GC和PS的说法，这个新的approach应该是减少（生产过程里）整体material use和waste production。
但是E选项说这些公司不太可能投资在新的ecoefficiency measure，而根据第一段Ecoefficiency的定义，它只是关于消除／减少生产过程中的waste，也就是说它不是关于整体的waste production。
所以，E选项不能被GC和PS提出要新的approach所推导出。

不知道这样理解对不对，欢迎拍砖～

Attano

一年一回复的老题？
我的想法：
A. 全文没有提到过会不会再对EE进行投资，只是可能投资非环保产业，所以到底会不会投资EE是推断不出来的，原文的no guarantee也就无从谈起。
B. 是一个不可能错误的答案，请看原句：Such innovations reduce production waste but do not alter the number of products manufactured nor the waste generated from their use and discard; indeed, most companies invest in ecoefficiency improvements in order to increase profits and growth. “很清楚的表明了increase profit and growth的意思，这个increase的直接后果就是扩大产量，更多的消费形环境污染就会产生。
E. 和A实际上是一样的，文章没有提到到底会不会对EE的投资有影响，只是说可能会投资不环保的而已，这和投资EE是没有冲突，也没有之间的加强/削弱关系的。
欢迎拍砖！

Attano

附上是Manhattan verbal foundation对这道题的解释

(A) is a pretty good match for a sentence in the passage: “there is no guarantee that increased economic
growth from ecoefficiency will come in similarly ecoefficient ways.” However, I feel a little weird about
how the answer choice says “further improvements” in EE. The passage never says anything about
improving EE—the passage makes EE sound like something you either do or don’t do (there’s nothing
about doing it well or doing it poorly). So, I think that’s a flaw in (A). I’ll put a squiggle next to it on my
paper—I’m pretty sure I’ll find something better.
(B)... Hmmn. The passage didn’t mention this, but it didn’t mention that EE doesn’t reduce waste from
product use and discard, and that companies do EE to make more profits, and that there’s “no guarantee”
that the profits will go into EE industries. This seems to imply that the profits could be reinvested
basically anywhere—which would include manufacturing a greater number of products to be used and
discarded. I think this is a very GMAT-type Inference answer. The passage didn’t say this directly, but
based on the facts that were given in the passage, this answer really can’t be wrong.
(C) talks about companies that don’t realize cost savings. The passage never talks about this.
(D) is completely irrelevant to the passage, which never talks about companies developing dependency
or having to compete with non-EE businesses.
(E) mentions “ecoefficiency goals,” which I find a little confusing—are those goals for the environment
or for profit? In any case, “unlikely” is too strong. The passage simply says that there is “no guarantee”
that companies will reinvest in EE businesses (“unlikely” would imply a less than 50% chance of their
doing so). Also, the passage makes no mention of “new and innovative” EE measures. Again, EE has
been presented as something a company either does or doesn’t do—there’s no mention of needing to get
better at it over time. For all I know, EE measures could have been the same for a long time.
The answer is (B).