I remember when reading through the last paragraph I was thinking "so does the author think countries should act unilaterally to curb emissions?" Lo and behold, it was one of the questions.
I got the question correct, but some input would still be much appreciated.
Incorrect Answers:
(A): I had some issues with this answer. Lines 51-54 indicate that countries would have less incentive to curb emissions and would probably emit more. The word that really stuck out to me was "probably." Would it be possible to argue that more emissions = harm? The passage never explicitly talks about harm, but it does talk about air pollution. One of the reasons I chose (C) was because I didn't remember explicitly seeing the discussion of harm.
(B): This one was fairly easy to eliminate. Line 46 straight up says benefits would spread across the globe.
(D): This one can be eliminated because it said the country's economy would benefit. If I recall correctly, no where does it link curbing emissions with economic benefit. In fact, upon review, line 29 talks about the possible taxing effect curbing emissions might have on the economy.
(E): This one was also fairly easy to eliminate. Inspired? The paragraph doesn't talk about inspiration.
Correct Answer (C): Line 47 talks about the cost. This was my biggest reason for choosing (C), since it's explicitly referred to in the passage. But when I read the question, and went back to read the relevant information, my pre-phrase (before reading the answers) was "not act unilaterally because other countries would have less incentive and would probably emit more emissions." When I saw that answer (C) didn't have that, I was thrown back a bit.