tapdoanhp wrote:
I think E is the answer.
Conclusion: Commercials, rather than vehicle emission, is the culprit behind the recent mild winter.
A. Although commercial property areas tend to emit significantly less pollution than industrial areas, they still emit more than the vehicles in the area on a given day.
=>
commercial have more influence on the changing weather pattern but both commercials and vehicle emission may cause the mild winter so A weakens the argument somehow B.Most of the people who work in commercial areas drive to work each day.
=> cannot conclude commercials support the arg (if any, it even weaken the arg since more cars ,more emission)C.New strict laws in the area require buildings in the industrial areas to reduce their emissions by 60% in the next 5 years.
the winter is now not in 5 years D. Vehicle exhaust is comprised largely of carbon monoxide, the same pollutant emitted by the industrial areas.
not strengthenE. In response to consumer demand, exhaust levels per vehicle have steadily decreased in recent years.
the correct answer. exhaust levels decrease so it may deny the possibility of alternative cause and hence support the main cause (commercials)Good to know your thinking on this. Let me explain you in this way.
The question stem concludes through scientist's argument that increasing industrial sectors from commercial is the
chief reason of mild winter, and that vehicle emissions is not the major cause.
With this understanding, let's look at the options.
In A, it can be directly concluded that industrial sectors have much greater emission than vehicle emission. Note how easily it disguises the quantum of emissions here. Here, the option is indicating that
In Total, industrial emission >> Vehicle emissions. Thus, the major contributing factor towards pollution is industrial area and not vehicles. This directly supports the argument.
On the other hand,
in E, option indicates that [/b]in response to consumer demand[/b], emissions per vehicle have steadily decreased in
recent years. I see two fallacies here- a) what if number of vehicles is very less? ; b) what if emission per vehicle increases drastically this year ?
Since I cannot visualise an unwavered support to the argument's conclusion, this option in my opinion is incorrect.
Hope this helps.