Yes, that's a good point.
In terms of frameworks, here's how we think about it at GMAT PILL:
A leads toB
[Lauriel plant emissions] leads to[respiratory problems]
The passages suggests that emissions will go down.
So given that (A --> B), if we reduce/remove A - then one might think that B disappears.
If we reduce emissions, one might think that respiratory problems will disappear.
But the author says that will UNLIKELY happen because.... why?
Because something else OTHER than A (let's call it C) will lead to B.
If we have something
...
In terms of frameworks, here's how we think about it at GMAT PILL:
A leads toB
[Lauriel plant emissions] leads to[respiratory problems]
The passages suggests that emissions will go down.
So given that (A --> B), if we reduce/remove A - then one might think that B disappears.
If we reduce emissions, one might think that respiratory problems will disappear.
But the author says that will UNLIKELY happen because.... why?
Because something else OTHER than A (let's call it C) will lead to B.
If we have something
...