If step 1 is removed, which statement best describes the effects of this missing step on the carbon cycle?

Question

Chris wrote a few steps to describe how carbon circulates between the ground and living organisms.

Step 1. Plants absorb carbon dioxide in the air and use it to make their own food using photosynthesis.

Step 2. When plants or animals die, they are broken down by decomposers and their carbon returns to the soil.

Step 3. Carbon stays in the ground for long-term storage as fossilized carbon.

1.  More carbon is stored in the ground for long-term storage. 
2. Less carbon is available for plant growth.
3. More carbon is stored in plants instead of the ground. 
4. There are more fossil fuels available for energy use.

Answer 1

I would argue that #2 is correct, that less carbon would be available for plant growth. This comes from a long line of cause and effect. Removing Step One of this process essentially ensures that plants cannot survive, as they would have no process to create energy. This causes animals to also not be able to survive, and animals produce carbon dioxide through respiration and unnatural causes (like burning fossil fuels). The lack of animals would cause there to be less carbon available for plant growth (hence why #2 is correct), less carbon stored in plants since it does not exist in bountiful quantities in the atmosphere (why #3 is incorrect), less carbon stored in the ground as animals and plants would not exist (why #1 is incorrect), and less creation of fossil fuels since there is no carbon in the ground (why #4 is incorrect).

Really though, I dislike this question and wouldn't consider it fair on any exam. It's tricking you because removing step one would have most life on earth cease to exist, making the results obselete.