Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 22 Oct 2014, 06:29

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States [#permalink] New post 27 Dec 2003, 13:52
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States automobile industry argued that meeting the acts standards for automobile emissions was neither economically feasible nor environmentally necessary. However, the catalytic converter, invented in 1967, enabled automakers to meet the 1970 standards efficiently. Currently, automaker are lobbying against the governments attempt to pass legislation that would tighten restrictions on automobile emissions. The automakers contend that these new restrictions would be overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution. Clearly, the automobile industrys position should not be heeded.


Which one of the following, if true, lends the most support to the automakers current position?

(A) The more stringent the legislation restricting emissions becomes, the more difficult it becomes for automakers to provide the required technology economically.

(B) Emissions-restriction technology can often be engineered so as to avoid reducing the efficiency with which an automobile uses fuel.

(C) Not every new piece of legislation restricting emissions requires new automotive technology in order for automakers to comply with it.

(D) The more automobiles there are on the road, the more stringent emission restrictions must be to prevent increased overall air pollution.

(E) Unless forced to do so by the government, automakers rarely make changes in automotive technology that is not related to profitability
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 27 Dec 2003, 18:42
THis question is from http://www.studa.com with lot of grammatical mistakes.
The given asnwer is D. THis completely went above my head. I dont trust this answer. I also chose A.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 649
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Nov 2007, 19:53
bump:

I was between (A) and (D). Can anyone explain why (D) is not correct?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 468
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 25 Nov 2007, 01:03
I fell for A as well.
To me, D seems to support government's side, not automakers.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 521
Location: Indonesia
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Nov 2007, 06:24
A

D doesnt support Automaker

Amar
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1551
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 233 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 25 Nov 2007, 06:37
yeah, i got D. You see, the automakers are saying that it's pointless to improve efficiency and answer choice D explains why. you see, reducing emission is possible provided that the number of cars out there remains constant. however, looking at choice D, no matter how much more efficient automakers can try to achieve, that efficiency can never be achieved when the number of cars is also growing. spending more money on efficiency while the number of cars releasing emission is also growing will not help the automakers achieve the desired result. can you see that? maybe efficiency has improved by 20% but then 40% new cars became operational, releasing emission that the automakers have tried so hard to minimize.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 521
Location: Indonesia
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Nov 2007, 06:40
Yes Tarek, No it makes sense. you go it right, thanks :)

Amar
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1551
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 233 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 25 Nov 2007, 07:28
you're welcome :)
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 649
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Nov 2007, 07:31
However, OA is A in CR1000.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1551
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 233 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 25 Nov 2007, 07:47
we have 2 OA's now?? but when I look at A, there is no way it can be correct. how can A strengthen the automaker's argument in any way? i'm really confident with D. D gives an evidence that agrees with the automaker.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 468
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 25 Nov 2007, 10:27
tarek99 wrote:
yeah, i got D. You see, the automakers are saying that it's pointless to improve efficiency and answer choice D explains why. you see, reducing emission is possible provided that the number of cars out there remains constant. however, looking at choice D, no matter how much more efficient automakers can try to achieve, that efficiency can never be achieved when the number of cars is also growing. spending more money on efficiency while the number of cars releasing emission is also growing will not help the automakers achieve the desired result. can you see that? maybe efficiency has improved by 20% but then 40% new cars became operational, releasing emission that the automakers have tried so hard to minimize.

hence making government create new and stricter laws against automakers. That's the way I see it.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 477
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 4

GMAT ToolKit User
re [#permalink] New post 26 Nov 2007, 20:45
asdert wrote:
tarek99 wrote:
yeah, i got D. You see, the automakers are saying that it's pointless to improve efficiency and answer choice D explains why. you see, reducing emission is possible provided that the number of cars out there remains constant. however, looking at choice D, no matter how much more efficient automakers can try to achieve, that efficiency can never be achieved when the number of cars is also growing. spending more money on efficiency while the number of cars releasing emission is also growing will not help the automakers achieve the desired result. can you see that? maybe efficiency has improved by 20% but then 40% new cars became operational, releasing emission that the automakers have tried so hard to minimize.

hence making government create new and stricter laws against automakers. That's the way I see it.



2 answers to one question?? buoy thats clearly messed up.looks like everyone is coming up with his/her own.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 27 Nov 2007, 09:07
It's actually A, not D.


D doesn't support the Automaker's position- it's kinda out of scope. If you look at the earlier sentence, there's a reference about how the restrictions only make things more expensive and isn't necessary for reducing pollution.

So A is the best answer to fit the scope, since it makes reference about expenses.


D is just a different topic.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1551
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 233 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 27 Nov 2007, 11:25
"A" mentions that it will be more economically challenging for the automakers. however it doesn't also address the automakers' comment that this restriction will be overly unnecessary to curb air polution. "D" says that no matter what they do, pollution will not be reduced, so it will be a waste of time and effort to consider the restriction in the first place.

wow, does anyone have the ABSOLUTE OA so that we can finalize our wondering minds here? heheh....
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 182
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 27 Nov 2007, 12:36
tarek99 wrote:
"A" mentions that it will be more economically challenging for the automakers. however it doesn't also address the automakers' comment that this restriction will be overly unnecessary to curb air polution. "D" says that no matter what they do, pollution will not be reduced, so it will be a waste of time and effort to consider the restriction in the first place.

wow, does anyone have the ABSOLUTE OA so that we can finalize our wondering minds here? heheh....


How does D support the Auto Industry? All that D states is that the more cars there are, the more efficient they have to be in order to prevent the increased overall air pollution – just be more emission efficient per car. Nothing about reducing aggregate air pollution levels below a certain amount when there were X cars as opposed to Y cars where X<Y. To clarify, D does not state that the air pollution level given Y cars should be at or below the air pollution level given X cars. The restrictions imposed would allow pollution level to grow, albeit at a decreased rate, w/ more cars produced.

D would be right if it were stated somewhere in the argument that the number of cars is not growing. As far as the contention that “new restrictions would be overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution”, it could be that Auto Industry is not the major culprit causing air pollution, it could cause only about 20% of it, where as other sources are accountable for 80% and hence Auto Industry’s investing in more energy efficient technologies is just not necessary or wise as it wouldn't change the situation.

Additionally, the counter-premise in the argument states that the invention of the catalytic converter enabled automakers to meet the 1970s standards efficiently, but if further restrictions were to be imposed, the Auto Industry may not be able to deploy energy-saving technologies efficiently. This is what A states.
  [#permalink] 27 Nov 2007, 12:36
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States gurpreet07 15 18 Nov 2009, 10:40
Since the passage of the states Clean Air Act ten years ago, GMATBLACKBELT 14 08 Oct 2007, 20:08
Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years nitinneha 2 27 Mar 2007, 15:10
Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years leeye84 4 16 Mar 2007, 14:23
Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years wunderbar03 7 28 Apr 2005, 06:55
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.