|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
16 Dec 2025, 23:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise:
Passenger vehicles share of pollution went from 27% to 19%
Overall particulate pollution (absolute total) went up
Conclusion:
stricter vehicle standards led overall reduction in pollution.
We need to find something that ensures both premises are valid but can weaken the position of conclusion
A. This says that passenger vehicle pollution contribution is same and is not inline with premise 1
B. This provides an alternate explanation but the mention of small share makes it not a good contender or explainer of decline from 27% to 19%
C. If the category for some vehicles in the passenger vehicle is changed, then it explains why passenger vehicles' share of pollution went down and it is not the stricter vehicle standards but it doesn't explain why overall particulate pollution went up.
D. someareas traffic fell and in some other areas it went up. No impact.
E. Correct. This tells that haze -> led to increase in ambient pollution -> so denominator of total pollution went up. This explains both that overall pollution went up, passenger vehicles share went down but it may not be due to the reason mentioned by the author (stricter vehicle standards)
Passenger vehicles share of pollution went from 27% to 19%
Overall particulate pollution (absolute total) went up
Conclusion:
stricter vehicle standards led overall reduction in pollution.
We need to find something that ensures both premises are valid but can weaken the position of conclusion
A. This says that passenger vehicle pollution contribution is same and is not inline with premise 1
B. This provides an alternate explanation but the mention of small share makes it not a good contender or explainer of decline from 27% to 19%
C. If the category for some vehicles in the passenger vehicle is changed, then it explains why passenger vehicles' share of pollution went down and it is not the stricter vehicle standards but it doesn't explain why overall particulate pollution went up.
D. someareas traffic fell and in some other areas it went up. No impact.
E. Correct. This tells that haze -> led to increase in ambient pollution -> so denominator of total pollution went up. This explains both that overall pollution went up, passenger vehicles share went down but it may not be due to the reason mentioned by the author (stricter vehicle standards)
17 Dec 2025, 00:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Stricter vehicle standards have been effective in reducing overall air pollution. This is regarded as reason for decrease in passenger vechicle pollution. And it is also assumed that decrease in vechicle pollution also reduces overall air pollution. We need to weaken this reasoning. An alternate reason can weaken the argument.
Lets see options one by one:
A. Vehicle kilometers traveled rose sharply as Velonia’s population grew, while per-kilometer emissions from new cars fell, leaving total passenger-vehicle emissions roughly unchanged. This is actually strengthing the reasoning.
B. During the same decade, Velonia implemented incentives for electric vehicle adoption, though these vehicles still make up a small share of the national fleet. Yes this is weakening the reasoning since it is introducing alternate reasons. This is creating doubt on authors reasoning.
C. Five years ago, the national inventory reclassified emissions from ride-hailing fleets and small delivery vans from “passenger vehicles” to “light commercial transport,” without any change in their emission levels. This is irrelevant and does not weakening the reasoning.
D. Peak-hour traffic fell in several city centers after congestion fees were introduced, though off-peak traffic increased in suburban corridors. This is irrelevant and doesnot weakening the reasoning.
E. Regional cross-border haze events became more frequent, raising measured ambient pollution in Velonia during several recent years. This is serving as reason for overall increase in pollution despite vechicles decrease in pollution. This is also weakening it since it was assumed that strict measures helped in decreasing overall air pollution.But this is weakening overall reasoning.
So answer will be either B or E. Now since overall pollution ks increased, E will be more weakener.
Lets see options one by one:
A. Vehicle kilometers traveled rose sharply as Velonia’s population grew, while per-kilometer emissions from new cars fell, leaving total passenger-vehicle emissions roughly unchanged. This is actually strengthing the reasoning.
B. During the same decade, Velonia implemented incentives for electric vehicle adoption, though these vehicles still make up a small share of the national fleet. Yes this is weakening the reasoning since it is introducing alternate reasons. This is creating doubt on authors reasoning.
C. Five years ago, the national inventory reclassified emissions from ride-hailing fleets and small delivery vans from “passenger vehicles” to “light commercial transport,” without any change in their emission levels. This is irrelevant and does not weakening the reasoning.
D. Peak-hour traffic fell in several city centers after congestion fees were introduced, though off-peak traffic increased in suburban corridors. This is irrelevant and doesnot weakening the reasoning.
E. Regional cross-border haze events became more frequent, raising measured ambient pollution in Velonia during several recent years. This is serving as reason for overall increase in pollution despite vechicles decrease in pollution. This is also weakening it since it was assumed that strict measures helped in decreasing overall air pollution.But this is weakening overall reasoning.
So answer will be either B or E. Now since overall pollution ks increased, E will be more weakener.
17 Dec 2025, 01:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Share of natural emissions from 27% to 19% over last decade.
Stricter vehicle standards lead to reduced air pollution
But, satellite readings show that air pollution has actually increased.
How to weaken the argument ?
It is possible when there is accounting reduction instead of real reduction in air pollution level.er
A. Total vehicle pollution levels remained unchanged. Does not weaken. Incorrect
B. Small share of EV will not cause significant reduction in air pollution. Does not weaken. Incorrect
C. There is accounting reduction in passenger vehicle air pollution reduction since some vehicle moved to a different category. Correct
D. Peak / Off-peak traffic details does not weaken the argument. Incorrect
E. While the statement explains why air pollution levels have risen but it does not explain Environmental officials claim that because of stricter vehicle standards have been effective in reducing overall air pollution.
IMO C
Stricter vehicle standards lead to reduced air pollution
But, satellite readings show that air pollution has actually increased.
How to weaken the argument ?
It is possible when there is accounting reduction instead of real reduction in air pollution level.er
A. Total vehicle pollution levels remained unchanged. Does not weaken. Incorrect
B. Small share of EV will not cause significant reduction in air pollution. Does not weaken. Incorrect
C. There is accounting reduction in passenger vehicle air pollution reduction since some vehicle moved to a different category. Correct
D. Peak / Off-peak traffic details does not weaken the argument. Incorrect
E. While the statement explains why air pollution levels have risen but it does not explain Environmental officials claim that because of stricter vehicle standards have been effective in reducing overall air pollution.
IMO C
