From 1880 to 2000 Britain's economy grew fivefold, but emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, were the same on a per capita basis in Britain in 2000 as they were in 1880.
Britain's economy grew fivefold over 120 years, yet per capita CO2 emissions ended up exactly where they started.
One detail to keep in mind: the stimulus only tells us about the endpoints (1880 and 2000). It doesn't tell us what happened in the 120 years between. Per capita emissions could have spiked and come back. They could have stayed flat the whole time. They could have moved in any number of patterns. The only thing we know for sure is that the start and end values match.
The question asks for a generalization that's incompatible with the stimulus, meaning a claim that must be false given what we know. The most natural candidate is a generalization saying economic growth always, inevitably, or necessarily increases per capita emissions. Britain's experience would be impossible if such a generalization were true.
The claims made above are incompatible with which one of the following generalizations?
A decrease in per capita emissions of carbon dioxide never occurs during a period of economic growth.
This is compatible. The stimulus only tells us where per capita emissions started and ended, not what happened in the years between. For all we know, per capita emissions stayed flat the entire 120 years, in which case no decrease ever occurred at all. Or any decreases that did happen could have happened during recession years rather than during periods of economic growth. The stimulus doesn't pin down the moment-by-moment relationship between growth and emissions changes.
Countries whose economies are growing slowly or not at all usually cannot afford to enact laws restricting carbon dioxide emissions.
This is compatible. Britain's economy grew fast (fivefold), so the stimulus tells us nothing about how countries with slow or stagnant economies handle emissions laws. (B) might be true or false out in the world; the stimulus simply doesn't address slow-growing countries.
Economic growth initially leads to increased per capita emissions of greenhouse gases, but eventually new technologies are developed that tend to reduce these emissions.
This is compatible. (C) actually describes a path that fits Britain's data well: per capita emissions rise during early industrialization, then fall as new technologies come online, ending at roughly where they started. Since the stimulus only fixes the endpoints, any path that starts and ends at the same value is on the table, including the up-then-down path (C) describes.
As the world's population grows, emissions of greenhouse gases will increase proportionately.
This is compatible. (D) is about world population and world-scale emissions. The stimulus is about Britain's per capita emissions. Two different scopes (one country vs. the world, per capita vs. total). The stimulus has nothing to say about what happens when the world's population grows.
Economic growth always increases household income and consumption, which inevitably increases per capita emissions of carbon dioxide.
This must be false. (E) says economic growth always increases income and consumption, which inevitably increases per capita CO2 emissions. Britain had economic growth (a fivefold expansion, no less). If (E) were true, Britain's per capita emissions in 2000 would have to be higher than in 1880. But the stimulus says they were the same.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic