CR97561.01 – Under the agricultural policies
Question Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a grain board at guaranteed
Menu
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids. And fuel produces air pollution, which contributes to a number of environmental problems. Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel efficient, and they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if we make them aware of that fact. Therefore, we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars.
Which of the following, if true, would most indicate a vulnerability of the politician’s argument?
(This question is from Official Guide. Therefore, because of copyrights, the complete question cannot be copied here. The question can be accessed at GMAT Club)
Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids.
HC (Hybrid cars) << NHC (Nonhybrid cars) – in terms of FUEL/KM
And fuel produces air pollution, which contributes to a number of environmental problems.
Fuel -> Air pollution -> Environmental problems
Relating this statement to the previous one, the indication is that hybrid cars lead to less pollution and less environmental damage than nonhybrid cars.
Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel-efficient,
This statement presents an economic advantage of hybrid cars (which are more fuel-efficient, as given in the first statement).
and they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if we make them aware of that fact.
Motorists will be encouraged to use hybrid cars if they get to know that hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids. (Please note that what “that fact” refers to is not very clear. “that fact” could refer to the fact that hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids or that Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel-efficient. I’ve gone with the former reference.)
Therefore, we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars.
“Therefore” indicates that a conclusion is being presented here. The author concludes that we can reduce pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting the above economic advantage of hybrid cars. Please note that “this advantage” refers to the economic advantage of hybrid cars.
The author concludes that we can reduce pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting the fact that people can save money by driving hybrid cars.
How will highlighting this fact help reduce pollution emitted by cars?
Pollution will reduce since hybrid cars use less fuel per km and thus probably produce less pollution per km.
There are several gaps in the argument:
There might be other gaps also. Can you spot any other gaps?
Let’s see whether the following statement is also a potential gap:
The production of hybrid cars produces much more pollution than the production of nonhybrid cars.
Do you think the above statement highlights a gap in the argument?
No. This statement is not a gap in the argument.
Why?
Because the conclusion talks about “the total amount of pollution emitted by cars”.
The conclusion is not impacted by the pollution emitted in the production of cars. Can you see that?
(A) Correct.
This option is around the third gap that we identified. If people with more fuel-efficient cars drive more, then highlighting the economic advantage of hybrid cars or selling more hybrid cars may not bring down the pollution levels. Even with less pollution per km, if hybrid cars are driven more, they may lead to overall more pollution.
Is it guaranteed that hybrid cars will lead to more pollution?
No. And we’re not even looking for a guarantee. The correct option needs to just “indicate” a vulnerability in the argument.
(B) Incorrect.
This option has ZERO impact on the argument. The conclusion is about reducing “the total amount of pollution emitted by cars.” Let’s say we change the option to below:
Only a very small proportion of the air pollution originates from automobiles.
The above statement still has ZERO impact on the argument since we’re concerned with…you know…reducing “the total amount of pollution emitted by cars”. Now, whether this amount is a small proportion of the total air pollution or it is a big proportion has NO impact on the argument.
(C) Incorrect.
This option has ZERO impact on the argument.
Whether hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity or not has no impact on whether increasing their popularity will bring down the pollution or not.
(D) Incorrect.
This option has ZERO impact on the argument.
Whether other alternatives will become available in the future or not has no impact on whether highlighting the advantage of these cars will bring down the pollution or not.
(E) Incorrect.
This option has ZERO impact on the argument.
Our ability to predict the price of fuel has NO impact on the argument. Note that this option is not saying that the cost of gasoline might decline or increase; it’s just talking about our ability to predict the prices.
Let’s say the option were:
The future cost of gasoline and other fuel will be lower than their current cost.
This statement has a slightly negative impact on the argument since if the future costs are lower, then people may not have much incentive to buy hybrid cars just for their lower fuel per km advantage.
Question Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a grain board at guaranteed
Question It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activities such as solving crossword puzzles or mathematics problems in order to maintain
Question The heavy traffic in Masana is a growing drain on the city’s economy – the clogging of the streets of the central business district
Learn GMAT the right way – through common sense and logic. There’s no shortcut to a well-deserved success!
© 2021 All rights Reserved.