I don't understand why E is incorrect and A is the correct answer choice. The stimulus refers to " abatement." Abatement can mean reduction only and not necessarily total elimination. So, if the economist is arguing against the proponents saying that it is not the way they think it is, then answer choice E that refers to this idea of no reduction should still hold true since the proponents may be talking about only a reduction in the environmental damage and not the total elimination of it when they mentioned "abatement". Also, "worse than" may be understood as answer choice D -like an increase in the damage instead, so why is that?
#8 - Proponents of the electric car maintain that when
The full explanation for this question is in the June 2007 LR 2 explanation area, specifically at viewtopic.php?t=2216. So, before we reply to your question, we're going to first move your post to that forum, and then append it to the pre-existing thread.
In the meantime, please take a look at what is written there and perhaps it will address your question.
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
Thank you Dave! Yes, I looked over these answers. However, my only remaining concern is the word "abatement." How did we infer that the proponents actually meant total elimination when they mentioned "abatement"? What if they only meant to say a reduction in the environmental damage. If this is the case, then that makes answer choice E possible because no net reduction can also mean a consequence that is "worse than" what the proponents may come to believe.
This question was probably written by a lawyer, as "abatement" is a term of art in common law jurisdictions. It can mean different things depending on the jurisdiction or area of law, such as a formal end to a criminal proceeding based upon the death of the defendant, or the reduction of debt based on an estate's insufficient assets. In common English, it can mean anything from "end completely" to a reduction.
Here we are asked to infer the precise definition of "end completely" based upon the immediately proceeding parenthitcal in the same sentence, which tells us that the electric cars are "emission-free," meaning that their adoption would lead to a complete end of "the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions."
Hope this clears things up!