In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States automobile indus

Straight D ...
just because the automobile industry failed to predict the feasibility of act's standard for emission in past , it does not mean that this time also they are wrong . ...

Simplify the argument -

Automobile Industry
1970
New Standards --> 1. Not necessary 2. Not economically viable.

However,
Catalytic Converters --> Made following standards economically viable.

Now
New Standards --> 1. Not necessary 2. Not economically viable.

Author
Do not heed the automobile industry's claims.

Why does the author say so? He thinks that a new technology (something like catalytic converters in 70s) will be invented that negates the claims of the automobile industry.

Which option closely says so? Option D.

Option A - Incorrect.
they do not lead to a contradiction. Contradiction implies two opposing conclusions. Nothing like that here.

Option B - Incorrect.
Nowhere is it mentioned that automakers' information is false.

Option C - Incorrect.
No flaw is pointed out. The author directly makes a conclusion based on historical evidence. It is not necessary to assume that what happened in the past must repeat now. Hence, no flaw.

Option E - Incorrect.
No such evidence is provided. The author directly gives a conclusion that the automobile industry's claims must not be heeded to.

In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States automobile industry argued that meeting the act’s 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, automakers are lobbying against the government’s 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 industry’s position should not be heeded.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the method used to counter the automakers’ current position?


(A) The automakers’ premises are shown to lead to a contradiction. X
No contradiction present.

(B) Facts are mentioned that show that the automakers are relying on false information. X
Did not happen.

(C) A flaw is pointed out in the reasoning used by the automakers to reach their conclusion. X
This is true of the automaker's previous conclusion, not their current one.

(D) A comparison is drawn between the automakers’ current position and a position they held in the past. CORRECT
-so the key focus here is we are trying to counter the automaker's CURRENT position. The author does so by using the past as a precedent and concludes that the automakers are full of blasphemy.

(E) Evidence is provided that the new emissions legislation is both economically feasible and environmentally necessary. X

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.