Environmental Policy Advisor: The governments proposal to subsidize

Question

Environmental Policy Advisor: The government’s proposal to subsidize electric vehicles (EVs) is ill-advised and should be rejected. Despite the growing concern over climate change, statistics show that less than 5% of citizens currently own an EV. Additionally, the proposal is heavily championed by a consortium of battery manufacturers who stand to profit enormously from increased EV sales, regardless of the environmental impact of battery production and disposal. Therefore, instead of allocating funds to subsidize EVs, the government should invest in public transportation projects that serve a larger portion of the population and have a more direct impact on reducing carbon emissions.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the environmental policy advisor’s reasoning?

A. The advisor assumes that because a small percentage of citizens own EVs, subsidizing them cannot lead to broader environmental benefits.

B. The advisor dismisses the proposal by questioning the motives of its proponents rather than evaluating the actual environmental merits of subsidizing EVs.

C. The advisor overlooks the possibility that subsidies could significantly increase EV adoption rates, thereby amplifying their environmental benefits.

D. The advisor fails to consider that investment in public transportation projects may not be as effective in reducing carbon emissions as increasing EV usage.

E. The advisor assumes that battery manufacturers are solely motivated by profit without acknowledging their efforts to improve environmental sustainability.

chandy123 · Answer

Explanation:

Understanding the Argument:
 • Conclusion: The government’s proposal to subsidize electric vehicles is ill-advised and should be rejected.
 • Premises:
 1. Less than 5% of citizens currently own an EV.
 2. The proposal is heavily championed by battery manufacturers who would profit greatly, regardless of environmental impacts.
 3. Funds should instead be invested in public transportation projects that serve more people and more directly reduce emissions.

Identifying the Flaw:

The environmental policy advisor argues against the EV subsidy by:
 • Highlighting the low current ownership of EVs.
 • Suggesting that the proponents (battery manufacturers) have selfish motives.
 • Proposing an alternative without fully addressing the potential benefits of the EV subsidy.

Flaw in Reasoning:
 • Ad Hominem Fallacy (Attacking the Proponent): The advisor rejects the proposal by attacking the motives of the battery manufacturers instead of critically analyzing the merits and potential environmental benefits of subsidizing EVs.
 • Failure to Address Potential Benefits: The advisor does not consider that subsidizing EVs could increase adoption rates, which may significantly contribute to reducing carbon emissions.

Analyzing Each Option:

A. The advisor assumes that because a small percentage of citizens own EVs, subsidizing them cannot lead to broader environmental benefits.
 • Analysis: While the advisor mentions the low ownership rate, the primary flaw is not this assumption. The flaw is more about dismissing the proposal based on the proponents’ motives.

B. The advisor dismisses the proposal by questioning the motives of its proponents rather than evaluating the actual environmental merits of subsidizing EVs.
 • Analysis: Correct. This option precisely identifies the flaw. The advisor attacks the battery manufacturers’ profit motives instead of addressing whether subsidizing EVs would be environmentally beneficial.

C. The advisor overlooks the possibility that subsidies could significantly increase EV adoption rates, thereby amplifying their environmental benefits.
 • Analysis: While true, this choice points out a missing consideration but doesn’t describe the main flaw, which is the ad hominem attack.

D. The advisor fails to consider that investment in public transportation projects may not be as effective in reducing carbon emissions as increasing EV usage.
 • Analysis: This option suggests an oversight regarding the effectiveness of public transportation versus EVs. However, it doesn’t capture the central flaw in dismissing the proposal based on proponents’ motives.

E. The advisor assumes that battery manufacturers are solely motivated by profit without acknowledging their efforts to improve environmental sustainability.
 • Analysis: This choice touches on the advisor’s assumption about the manufacturers’ motives but is less accurate in identifying the flaw than Option B. The main issue is not the assumption about motives per se but using that assumption to dismiss the proposal without evaluating its merits.

Conclusion:

Option B best describes the flaw in the environmental policy advisor’s reasoning because it identifies the dismissal of the proposal based on the proponents’ motives rather than a critical evaluation of the proposal itself.

glagad · Answer

chandy123 , Thanks for writing a detailed answer.

My analysis:

The author criticizes govt's recommendation because -
a) Low adoption of EVs (5%)
b) Motivations of battery owners

Conclusion: 
Instead of subsidizing, invest in Public Transportation Projects for impact

While I understand B is true. I feel C is a better candidate as it takes into consideration the premise (Low adoption) and conclusion (instead of subsidizing, invest somewhere else) and tries to bridge this by saying that author ignored the fact that subsidies can lead to more adoption.

I rejected B because 
- it only covers the motivations of battery owners (that's part of the reason why the policy advisor criticizes the govt's recommendation)
- There is some sort of critical evaluation (i.e. the advisor does mention current adoption is low)
- There is no strong connection (given by B) between conclusion (wider impact of investing in public transportation) and premise (motivations of battery manufacturers)

Kindly share your thoughts on the same.

skasmani · Answer

Same. Even i thought its more about adoption rate of ev and not ulterior motives

Any expert can shed light on this?

chandy123 · Answer

•The key point in this reasoning question is identifying the “most accurate” description of the flaw in the argument.
• The advisor states that the proposal to subsidize EVs should be rejected and supports this by:
• Pointing out low current adoption (less than 5% own EVs).
• Highlighting that battery manufacturers support the policy and stand to profit.
• Suggesting that instead of subsidies for EVs, funds should go to public transportation.
• While the advisor does mention low EV adoption rates, the critical juncture comes from how the argument is being dismissed. The argument focuses on the motives of the proponents (battery manufacturers who could profit) rather than analyzing whether subsidizing EVs would actually lead to environmental benefits. This is where the ad hominem aspect (attacking the proponents’ motives) emerges.
• Option B directly captures this flaw: it identifies that the advisor dismisses the proposal based on the motivations of its supporters rather than the substantive environmental merits of the proposal. By contrast, Option C, while pointing out a missed consideration (that subsidies might increase EV adoption and thus help the environment), is not as direct in identifying the advisor’s principal logical failing.
• In critical reasoning, identifying a personal attack or a motive-based dismissal without evaluating the actual proposal’s merits is generally considered a clearer and more fundamental flaw than simply overlooking a potential benefit. This is why Option B is typically the better answer. It isolates the core logical misstep: the advisor is rejecting the idea on the basis of who supports it (and why they might support it), rather than on the strength or weakness of the proposal’s environmental impact.
• In short, while the advisor does overlook the potential for increased EV adoption (what Option C describes), the exam’s logic usually prioritizes identifying the most explicit and recognized fallacy.

Hope that helps.

vijayakrishnan · Answer

I’m sorry but there is no critical juncture. When an argument says “additionally” it means it’s in addfion to whatever was said before. The counterargument is to invest in public transportation to maximize impact. So the only flaw is that the argument maker overlooked the possibility that the proposal could actually make more impact

glagad · Answer

The reasoning seems a bit beyond GMAT for me.

Can the GMAT experts also share their thoughts on this question)?

MartyMurray   KarishmaB   GMATNinja

Environmental Policy Advisor: The governments proposal to subsidize

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Environmental Policy Advisor: The governments proposal to subsidize

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards