- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#26213
Complete Question Explanation
Weaken—#/%. The correct answer choice is (C)
At first glance, the argument advanced in the stimulus appears valid. The companies’ plants account for only 4 percent of local air pollution, while pre-1980 automobiles account for 30 percent. This is a much larger figure and appears to be of much greater environmental concern than the companies’ plants. Therefore, targeting the old cars may be a better environmental solution to the pollution problem than redesigning the plants.
The main problem with this argument is that it is incomplete and therefore inherently weak. While we know what proportion of the local air pollution is attributable to old automobiles, the author provides no details about the program itself. For one, we have no idea how many old cars are in the local area or how many of these cars will be removed by the buyback program. While these old cars are highly pollutive as a group, each individual car may contribute very little pollution to the area. In this case, the buyback program may not be particularly successful at removing pollution, and may not be a better pollution-reducing option to redesigning plants.
Answer Choice (A): This answer choice does not weaken, and may actually strengthen, the argument. If the number of pre-1980 automobiles in the local area is particularly small, that means each individual automobile is contributing a much more significant amount of pollution. A strategy that eliminates these automobiles is therefore more likely to be effective at reducing pollution.
Answer Choice (B): This is a Shell Game answer. The fact that the buyback campaign would be cheaper to implement and more profitable than the alternative has no bearing on the issue of which proposal is likely to be more effective in reducing air pollution.
Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If almost none of the cars sold to the company still run, these cars are not actually the ones contributing to air pollution in the first place. This suggests that the automobile buyback program will probably have little or no effect on reducing air pollution.
Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is also a Shell Game answer. The argument was about whether the car buyback program was better at reducing pollution than the strategy of redesigning plants, not whether it was best way to reduce pollution. Even if cars made after 1980 pollute more than pre-1980 cars, reducing the number of pre-1980 cars may still be more effective at reducing pollution than redesigning the company’s plants.
Answer Choice (E): The number of groups filing complaints about pollution is not an issue here. The fact that the number of groups filing complaints about pollution is down does not mean pollution itself is down at the plants. Therefore, this answer choice has no bearing on whether the buyback program is more effective at reducing pollution.
Weaken—#/%. The correct answer choice is (C)
At first glance, the argument advanced in the stimulus appears valid. The companies’ plants account for only 4 percent of local air pollution, while pre-1980 automobiles account for 30 percent. This is a much larger figure and appears to be of much greater environmental concern than the companies’ plants. Therefore, targeting the old cars may be a better environmental solution to the pollution problem than redesigning the plants.
The main problem with this argument is that it is incomplete and therefore inherently weak. While we know what proportion of the local air pollution is attributable to old automobiles, the author provides no details about the program itself. For one, we have no idea how many old cars are in the local area or how many of these cars will be removed by the buyback program. While these old cars are highly pollutive as a group, each individual car may contribute very little pollution to the area. In this case, the buyback program may not be particularly successful at removing pollution, and may not be a better pollution-reducing option to redesigning plants.
Answer Choice (A): This answer choice does not weaken, and may actually strengthen, the argument. If the number of pre-1980 automobiles in the local area is particularly small, that means each individual automobile is contributing a much more significant amount of pollution. A strategy that eliminates these automobiles is therefore more likely to be effective at reducing pollution.
Answer Choice (B): This is a Shell Game answer. The fact that the buyback campaign would be cheaper to implement and more profitable than the alternative has no bearing on the issue of which proposal is likely to be more effective in reducing air pollution.
Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If almost none of the cars sold to the company still run, these cars are not actually the ones contributing to air pollution in the first place. This suggests that the automobile buyback program will probably have little or no effect on reducing air pollution.
Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is also a Shell Game answer. The argument was about whether the car buyback program was better at reducing pollution than the strategy of redesigning plants, not whether it was best way to reduce pollution. Even if cars made after 1980 pollute more than pre-1980 cars, reducing the number of pre-1980 cars may still be more effective at reducing pollution than redesigning the company’s plants.
Answer Choice (E): The number of groups filing complaints about pollution is not an issue here. The fact that the number of groups filing complaints about pollution is down does not mean pollution itself is down at the plants. Therefore, this answer choice has no bearing on whether the buyback program is more effective at reducing pollution.