I realized that I have a problem understanding the logic shift. In question 35, even though ( indicate a contrast) , so the two ideas are opposites.
So, I thought that to achieve the contradiction, we need one + and 1 -ve. So, even though the fuels are little, the government need to make a plan.
Because if there is a lot of fossil fuels, the government should advocate a plan.
May someone clarify methodically?
Basically the government should support for carbon free stuff correct because he is opposing the idea of having large quantities of fuel
So best possibility for this could be
Bolster
Corroborate
Advocate etc
Hope this clarifies your doubt
To be honest, I didn’t understand.
Now, if we have a lot of fuels, the government of course will apply a plan. I don’t get the contrast here.
@gregmat if you could help please on how to get the opposite meaning.
The contrast is with fossil fuel and carbon-free and carbon-neutral. This is because burning fossil fuel results in carbon pollution
