I can't figure out how B strengthens this argument. I had crossed out all the options and guessed C. Can someone please explain how B is correct.
#10 - If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there
The author concludes that if people would walk when feasible, then pollution would be greatly reduced. The evidence given for this claim is that if a person walks rather than drives, there will be one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air.
Answer choice (B) tells us that nonmoving running cars emit less pollution per second than moving cars, and that congestion adds to the number of these nonmoving cars.
The first statement informs us that nonmoving running cars do add to the amount of pollution released into the air. The second part of this statement tells us that congestion necessitates a large number of cars on the road. So, if more people were to walk, there wouldn't just be one fewer person driving, there would also be less congestion, and thus this one fewer driver would cut down on the pollution caused by his or her own car and the pollution caused by congestion.
Hi, I eliminated C because it said "it is possible" ...and not a very strong answer choice. Is this a good enough reason to eliminate? Can someone please explain to me why it doesn't serve to be the best answer here?
Answer choice (C) doesn't strengthen the argument because it adds nothing new or useful to the argument. The crux of the argument is that if people walk instead of drive wherever possible, pollution from cars would be greatly reduced. Answer choice (C) tells us that the impact on pollution on an individual-by-individual basis will vary depending on what kind of car the individual drives -- so a person who walks to work instead of driving an SUV will have prevented more pollution than a person who walks to work instead of driving his hybrid.
Either way, a person who opts to walk instead of drive decreases pollution. This really does nothing to make the overall conclusion stronger -- that if everyone drove less, there would be less pollution.
Contrast this with answer choice (B), which gives us a new datapoint to work with. We already know that when a person walks instead of drives, they benefit the environment since their car won't produce pollution during their commute. However, (B) tells us that with fewer cars on the road, even the people who still drive will produce less pollution. This is a new datapoint that makes the argument stronger.
I hope that makes sense. Good luck studying!
a lightbulb turned on my brain clicked when I realized if a person chooses to walk, even though nonmoving vehicles are less polluting than moving vehicles, walking vs any form of vehicle, walking is always the absolutely better option in regards to polluting. I recognized the answer choice B was the correct option after many considerations; recognized that this choice with the strong level of the comparative flaw (from the flaw in the reasoning ) component involved: Let's say (the greater the number, higher the polluting level.) For the sake of the argument, if a moving vehicle polluting level is 3, and nonmoving vehicle polluting level is 1, walking is zero. if we were to walk, instead of choosing nonmoving vehicle option, then it will be less polluting regardless of one to choose to ride a vehicle or nonmoving vehicle cuz either option still pollutes just one option is less polluting, that doesn't mean nonmoving vehicle doesn't pollute. Any form of riding a vehicle still pollutes so as the question stem and the answer choice says, walking will regardlessly improve the polluting situation overriding any vehicle option.
This answer choice strengths, if I can put in one sentence, "riding a vehicle pollutes and even riding the nonmoving vehicles pollutes, so walking is better option regards to human non-polluting "
Am I thinking correctly?
This is one really difficult question, it will be extremely difficult to realize all these implications in such short time period (if placed in the end of LR test section) then selecting the correct will be even more unlikely.
Yes, I think this is a perfectly valid way of thinking of it. Well done!
Can you explain in more detail why D is wrong? Buses pollute more, but if more people WALKED, like the stim argues for, then wouldn't bus usage decrease, and thus pollution decrease?
Answer D is interesting, sherrilyn, for the reason you brought up. The problem with it is that we don't know that it supports "more walkers means less pollution" because we don't know if more walkers means fewer buses! Maybe it just means emptier buses? If so, that would mean that buses would account for more pollution per person carried than they do currently, weakening the argument! There just isn't enough information in that answer choice for us to be sure that it helps the claim of walking having the effect of reducing pollution. Now, if it said "buses pollute more than cars, and if more people walked then many buses currently in service would be taken out of service", we would be on to something!
I don't know about your town, but where I live, and where I used to live, and where I lived before that, I saw a lot of buses running on their regular schedules all day with nobody, or very few people, on board. I would much rather that more people got out of their cars and ONTO those buses than see them cruising around empty like that!
I hope that helps!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
Thanks Adam, that helps!
The conclusion is that people walk instead of drive wherever possible pollution from cars would be greatly reduced.
I think (C) strengthens this conditional relationship between eliminating cars and less pollution by saying different cars can produce difference levels of pollution.
Can someone please tell where is wrong with my analysis?