#16 - Company spokesperson: In lieu of redesigning our

[Administrator]

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.

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello
The correct answer to this question was C , but I chose D. I think I understand why D is not the correct answer: it is because its irrelevant and does not go towards the argument the company will reduce air pollution more by buying old cars than would redesign our plants. I think the reason why I choose D was that I figured that introducing the fact that cars made after 1980 would call into question that only buying old cars would reduce air pollution. But I guess D is simply stating a "fact" not actually weakening the argument?

Thankyou
Sarah

[Adam Tyson]

I think you've got it, Sarah - the key to eliminating D is recognizing that they author never said that buying the older cars was the only way or even the best way to reduce pollution, just that it was one way to do so. We need to attack the idea that buying the older cars will reduce pollution more than redesigning the plant will do so. D suggests that the company could have an even larger impact if they bought newer cars (although maybe not - maybe there are a lot more newer cars but each one pollutes much less), but it does nothing to show that buying the older cars won't be better than fixing the plants.

C goes right to the heart of it - if the cars they buy aren't running, then they aren't the ones doing the polluting. Buying the old cars at scrap prices won't have as much of an impact as the author wanted us to believe. It doesn't destroy the argument, but it doesn't have to - on weaken questions we only need to hurt the argument a little bit.

There is, in my opinion, something a little unfair about answer C - it requires you to assume that a car that runs pollutes more than one that doesn't. Couldn't a rusty old hulk be "outgassing" or doing something else to pollute the air? Granted, that's not asking for a crazy assumption, but it does ask you to bring in some outside knowledge, something they generally try to avoid (and we generally counsel you to avoid doing). Still, on this test we aren't in the business of picking perfect answers or right answers or even good answers - we are only looking for the BEST answer of the five choices we are given. In this case, despite the reliance on the outside info, C is the best of the lot.

Good self-analysis. Keep it up!

[Sherry001]

Hello;
For this question I can see why c is the correct answer . But what's wrong with D? I totally feel it weakened as well !



1- old cars are highly pollutive.
2- cars that predate 1980 account for 30 percent .
Conclusion : we will reduce air pollution more by buying old cars than we would by redesigning our plants .

A) wrong : we don't care about how many cars are on the road. Just about how much pollution they present .
B) wrong : costs are irrelevant
C)correct: then it is use less , since most of the cars they purchase don't run anyway, so they can reduce pollution all that much.

D) why doesn't this work ? If I cars made after 1980 pollute more than the older cars, perhaps they are taking out the wrong cars off the road .

E)wrong. This strengthens that idea that company could reduce the pollution .


Thank you
Sherry .

[David Boyle]

Hello;
For this question I can see why c is the correct answer . But what's wrong with D? I totally feel it weakened as well !



1- old cars are highly pollutive.
2- cars that predate 1980 account for 30 percent .
Conclusion : we will reduce air pollution more by buying old cars than we would by redesigning our plants .

A) wrong : we don't care about how many cars are on the road. Just about how much pollution they present .
B) wrong : costs are irrelevant
C)correct: then it is use less , since most of the cars they purchase don't run anyway, so they can reduce pollution all that much.

D) why doesn't this work ? If I cars made after 1980 pollute more than the older cars, perhaps they are taking out the wrong cars off the road .

E)wrong. This strengthens that idea that company could reduce the pollution .


Thank you
Sherry .

Hello,

Answer D adds an irrelevant factor. The comparison is between plant redesign and old cars. If there happen to be a huge number of cars made after 1980, and they happen to create 31 percent of the pollution, that really doesn't change the relation between plant redesign and old cars.

David

[mshaikh]

After reading the explanations, I have a better idea of why answer choice A is wrong but I am still stuck on this a little. Initially when I picked this AC I thought it was saying that only 1% of these cars are still driven meaning that the chances of the automobiles contributing 30% of air pollution is very unlikely, thus weakening the argument. From the explanation it seems that this AC actually has the opposite effect. That only a few cars are contributing to 30% of air pollution meaning each individually contributes a lot. Can someone explain why my reasoning is incorrect? Am I making a numbers and percentage error when picking answer choice (A)?

Just want to make sure I don't make the same error again, especially since I am still a little confused.

Best,

Maham

[AthenaDalton]

Hi mshaikh,

I think the reasoning you articulated in the second half of your question is correct.

Remember that we have to accept the facts in each answer choice as true, even if they seem a little implausible.

In answer choice (A), we're told that only 1 percent of the cars in the area were made before 1980. In the stimulus, we're told that 30 percent of the pollution in the area comes from cars made before 1980. So if a tiny fraction of the cars on the road (1 percent) are producing a huge share of the area's pollution (30 percent), each car must general an incredible amount of pollution (again, just accept this as true even if it doesn't seem like this would happen in real life). So taking even a small number of pre-1980's cars off the road would make a big dent in the city's pollution levels.

If these facts are true, the head of this company is absolutely correct that the company would do more for the environment by taking pre-1980's cars off the road than by trying to chip away at the 4 percent pollution generated by the company's plants. Since we're trying to undermine the company's argument, answer choice (A) isn't a good option.

I hope that helps clarify things for you. Good luck studying!

Athena Dalton

[mshaikh]

Hi AthenaDalton,

That definitely helps! Thanks so much!

Best,

Maham S.

[German.Steel]

It seems like many tricky strengthen/weaken correct answers depend on you thinking outside the box to understand how an answer choice might apply to the situation, although it is not readily apparent. Any tips for developing this skill? I feel like I often miss strengthen/weaken questions with sneaky answers like this, where it’s not immediately obvious how it applies to the stimulus.

Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

In general, German.Steel, my approach to weaken any argument is to start out by being just a little childish about it. I look at the conclusion and just say "nope, I don't think so!" From there, I want an answer that supports that childish rejection of the conclusion.

In this case, the other says that buying old cars will help to reduce air pollution more than redesigning the plant would, so my first thought is "no it won't!" I want an answer that makes this program less effective, despite the stats they threw at me. Anything that suggests this program might be a failure, or at least less effective than the alternative, will be my friend.

Finally, when I get to the answers, I have to be looking eagerly for some new information, because you cannot weaken an argument by just repeating what it already said. You have to bring in a new, contrary piece of evidence, something that counters the conclusion in some way. I don't generally have very specific prephrases, because the right answer is usually not going to exactly match my prephrase if I am too specific. No, I just want to case a wide net and consider anything that might raise doubts. Any problem with the new program will do, as will any advantage of the alternative.

As long as you have that wide net and an open mind as you go through the answer choices, even a completely surprising answer that brings up something you never considered for a moment could be the winner! Just be open to new ideas, and the right ones will be appealing when you find them. Also, remember that any answer about which you are uncertain must be treated as a contender. If you don't immediately see exactly what makes it wrong, it might be right! So those unexpected answers will often be worth keeping around and thinking about some more if you end up with multiple contenders and none that are perfect matches for that prephrase. Confusion = contender, as I like to say!