A major impediment to wide acceptance of electric vehicles even on the

The question asks us which answer choice would “most threaten the plan’s prospect for success,” so before getting to the answer choices we need to understand exactly what “success” looks like.

Overall, the vehicle producer’s goal is to “make purchasing electric vehicles more attractive to commuters.” So, we need to determine how each answer choice would affect the success of achieving this specific goal.

With that in mind, take a look at (E):

Remember, the vehicle producer’s goal is to make electric vehicles more attractive to commuters. (E) tells us that some family vehicles are not used for commuting. Because the vehicle producer only cares about attracting commuters, the information in (E) does not threaten the success of the plan.

In addition, the fact that some family vehicles are "primarily" used for errands rather than for commutes doesn’t mean that those families do not occasionally want to make longer drives. So, the offer of a rental conventional car might be just as attractive to families who use their vehicle for errands rather than for commuting.

Finally, as vnigam21 mentioned,the word “some” stands out. Even if the information in (E) affected the vehicle producer's plan, it would be hard to say that it would seriously threaten the plan as a whole.

For these reasons, (E) is out.


(B) tells us that the cost of electric vehicles would go up if the producer went ahead with its plan. The goal of the producer's plan is to make electric vehicles more attractive to commuters. (B) gives us a solid reason that the plan would not accomplish this goal -- maybe commuters would enjoy the ability to rent conventional cars, but that factor now has to be weighed against the increased cost of purchasing an electric vehicle.

Because the information in this answer choice would make purchasing an electric vehicle less attractive to commuters, (B) threatens the success of the producer's plan.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Your conclusion is correct AND you think "A" weakens the argument by attacking the premise.

Electric CAR is a subset of Electric VEHICLES; they are not same. One is a part of another.

A. Many electric vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips.
Many electric vehicles MAY JUST NOT include the electric cars at all.

Even if we change vehicles to cars.
Many electric CARS that are USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES are not needed for extended trips.

See this:
A major IMPEDIMENT to wide acceptance of electric vehicles even on the part of PEOPLE WHO USE THEIR CARS almost exclusively FOR COMMUTING is the inability to use their electric vehicles for occasional extended trips.

The premise talks about the people who use CARS for commuting; Statement A talks about the CARS used for commercial purposes. Two things are NOT talking about the same thing. Thus, OUT OF SCOPE.

I ruled out B thinking people already arent buying the electric cars so rise in price would not really matter to them..

can anyone suggest why is A wrong?

Plan: Give out free rental of usual cars for every 1000 miles of electric cars usage; maybe because people can make extended trip using the normal cars. It makes the offer attractive for users who were rejecting to buy an electric car just because they could not make extended trips. This plan should have definitely increased the sales, according to the strategist.

So, what could be wrong with the plan that may rule out its adaptation by the company?

B. Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles per week, the cost of the producer of making good the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles.

I find this sentence convoluted. Let's break it:

Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles per week: So, approximately every 10 weeks, they become eligible for a free rental. Okay so far. This free rental is borne by the producer of the car.

Now,
"the cost of the producer of making good the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles."
That's something additional that we see. It says that the producer will increase the electric car price because it's giving the offer. Bad question, because the plan should have mentioned this in the passage.

Anyway, if it's true that electric car will become costlier, then another factor comes into picture. Money; something although not mentioned in the passage, but can be a good factor to fail the plan. B is the best of the lot.

So, as per B, the plan takes care of issue in the passage, but gives rise to another perhaps more concerning issue.

A. Many electric vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips.
This is a fact that doesn't concern the discussion. We're dealing with an issue where purchasers are drifting away from electric car because they can't use it for occasional extended travel. And here, this pitiful A is telling us about SOME electric cars that are not needed for extended trips. Neither the author of the passage nor should we be concerned about this. Simply: Out of scope.

Hi Fluke ,

I am a little confused about option A.

First lets begin with the conclusion. The conclusion is that people avoid buying electric cars since they cant use it for extended trips.

A states that => Many electric vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips.

If people dont need electric cars for extended trips but just for commercial purposes than isnt the conclusion is weakened ?

Electric vehicles : Suitable for commuting / Unsuitable for occasional extended trips. Offer : Three days free rental of a car for every 1,000 miles driven by electric vehicle.

Lets check the options -

(A) Many eclectic vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips.

Out of scope

(B) Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week, the cost to the producer of making good the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles.

Weakens the plan of the Producer , if cost escalates sale will be less.

(C) The relatively long time it takes to recharge the battery of an electric vehicle can easily be fitted into the regular patterns of car use characteristic of commuters.

Out of scope.

(D) Although eclectic vehicles are essentially emission-free in actual use, generating the electricity necessary for charging an electric vehicle's battery can burden the environment.

Out of scope.

(E) Some family vehicles are used primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips, such as to do errands.

Out of scope.

Hence IMHO (E) as well ...
_________________

A major impediment to wide acceptance of electric vehicles even on the part of people who use their cars almost exclusively for commuting is the inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips. In an attempt to make purchasing electric vehicles more attractive to commuters, one electric vehicle producer is planning to offer customers three days free rental of a conventional car for every 1,000 miles that they drive their electric vehicle.

Situation - Limited acceptance of electric vehicles even on the part of people who use their cars almost exclusively for commuting.
Impediment - The inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips
Proposed plan - To offer customers three days free rental of a conventional car for every 1,000 miles that they drive their electric vehicle.
Q : Plan is NOT good.

Which of the following, if true, most threatens the plan's prospects for success?

(A) Many eclectic vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips.
We are concerned about commuters in general not with those who will be using eclectic vehicles only for commercial purposes. What about those who are using eclectic vehicles for other usages? They [i]may be needing these vehicles for occasional long/extended trips [/i]

Also, as the argument itself lays emphasis on the fact - major impediment to wide acceptance of electric vehicles even on the part of people who use their cars almost exclusively for commuting is the inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips. This option is irrelevant.

(B) Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week, the cost to the producer of making good the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles.

The cost to the producer of making good the offer --> would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles.[/b]

This option means that the already high prices of the electric vehicles will increase considerably. That is, the customers will have to spent a significant amount of bucks for buying these vehicles. So, instead of the proposed offer, the considerable high price will then be the impediment to the wide acceptance of these vehicles. Therefore, correct answer.

(C) The relatively long time it takes to recharge the battery of an electric vehicle can easily be fitted into the regular patterns of car use characteristic of commuters.
so what?? if that is true? This option slightly strengthens the plan. So, incorrect.

(D) Although eclectic vehicles are essentially emission-free in actual use, generating the electricity necessary for charging an electric vehicle's battery can burden the environment.
Damage/Burden to environment is out of scope for the problem in hand. How does it prove that the plan is bad??

(E) Some family vehicles are used primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips, such as to do errands.
Some = Atleast One. So, if some people are using vehicles for short local trips that really does not matter. The primary purpose of the trip is totally out of context.

If anything, the vehicles are used for the short local trips then plan will be successful, if we think deep.

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo

By POE B stands out but unable to understand what exactly B is saying.

There was a small typo in choice (B). It should be "making good ON the offer", not "making good the offer".

To "make good" is to "fulfill an obligation". For example, "My friend said that he would buy me dinner, but he never made good on the offer." That means that my friend never actually bought me dinner, even though he said he would.

Similarly, the electric vehicle producer says that it will offer customers three days free rental of a conventional car for every 1,000 miles that they drive their electric vehicle. However, we don't know whether the producer will actually do that. Perhaps the producer underestimated the cost of giving away the free rentals and thus will have to renege (break the promise).

I hope that helps!
_________________

I don't see why E is wrong. E says that people use vehicles for short commutes and have no longer commutes to make. Since people need only conventional vehicles for long drives, most of them won't be tempted by the offer of 3 free days. Thus, the plan will fail. GMATNinja any advice?

B on the other hand says a lot of people will make good on the offer, which is exactly what the manufacture set out to find.

Answer: Option B

I think Option B is the only option with relevant reasoning.

The plan is to make the sale more attractive with free rental for 3 days on 1000 mile trips in EV

Option A: First line of argument clearly says that the plan is being made for people who use cars for commuting and not for commercial purpose.

Option B: The simple reasoning mentioned here is that the plan will be costly because the distance travelled per week is 100 miles which will require 3 days free rental every 10 weeks making it very costly and would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles hence a deterrent for the success of the plan.

Option C: A general fact which has nothing to do with the plan
Option D: A general fact which has nothing to do with the plan
Option E: This rather supports the plan instead of threatening. Short local trips won't challenge the efficiency of EV basing the limitations of EV mentioned in Option C and D. SO the plan stands sound on commercial grounds.

A major impediment to wide acceptance of electric vehicles even on the part of people who use their cars almost exclusively for commuting is the inability to use their electric vehicles for occasional extended trips.

This statement gives us a major blocker to wide acceptance of electric vehicles (EVs).
Even for people who use their cars almost exclusively for commuting.

The blocker: the inability to use their EVs for extended trips.

Something like:
I mainly use my car only to commute to and from work. Even then I’d rather not buy an electric vehicle. Because:
I occasionally do take extended trips. But I’ll not be able to use the electric vehicle for those trips.

In an attempt to make purchasing electric vehicles more attractive to commuters, one electric vehicle producer is planning to offer customers three days free rental of a conventional car for every 1,000 miles that they drive their electric vehicle.

One EV producer has come up with a plan.

Plan: Offer customers three days free rental of a petrol/ diesel car for every 1,000 miles they drive their EV
Goal: Make purchasing EVs more attractive to commuters

(I notice that the goal is to make purchasing EVs more attractive specifically to commuters. The goal is not to simply increase sales of EVs.)

EV producer’s logic:

A big reason commuters are generally not buying EVs is that they can’t use them for occasional extended trips.
If we offer free rental of a conventional car for those trips (with certain conditions), more commuters will buy EVs. (I have sneakily moved from the actual goal of making EVs more attractive to more sales of EVs. Technically, the two are not identical. For this argument though, I’m going to not worry about that nuanced difference.)

Gaps in logic:

Can we infer that if the plan is executed, the goal will be met? If not, why not?

What if the constraints are too stringent?

a. Maybe the ‘extended trips’ last for longer than three days
b. Maybe the commuters take such trips sooner than they drive 1000 miles in their car

There could be other gaps as well. These are what I could come up with.





Which of the following, if true, most threatens the plan’s prospects for success?

Framework: We’re looking for an answer choice that will lead me to believe that even if the EV producer runs this campaign, more commuters will not buy EVs.





(A) Many electric vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips.
Incorrect.
The goal is to make EVs more attractive to commuters. Vehicles used for commercial purposes means those vehicles are not used by commuters. So, this answer choice is talking about a different use case.

As far as the commuters are concerned, not being able to use the vehicle for extended trips is a major impediment. This EV producer has offered a solution for this problem. If some other group doesn’t have that problem, that’s fine. The producer is not trying to come up with a universal solution for all EV users.

No impact.

(B) Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week, the cost to the producer of making good the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles.
Correct.
What does the option give us

1. A majority of commuters will be eligible for a three-day free rental within every ten weeks
2. EVs are already quite expensive
3. The cost to the producer to offer a free rental that frequently will be significant
4. The producer will pass on this cost to the buyer
5. EVs will become significantly more expensive to buy

Passage: An EV producer has come up with a plan to make purchasing EVs more attractive to commuters
Answer choice: The plan will make EVs significantly more expensive (they are already high-priced)
So, the plan will have one advantage for commuters: getting a conventional car once in a while for their extended trips.
And one disadvantage: The EVs will become significantly more expensive to buy

Will the plan succeed in making purchasing EVs more attractive to commuters?

Once I learn that the plan will make EVs from the producer more expensive, my confidence goes down.
The notion that EVs will become significantly more expensive indicates that the significantly higher price tag will lead commuters to not buy EVs despite the perks.And if it is the plan that is making the EVs more expensive, I believe even more that the plan will not succeed.

(C) The relatively long time it takes to recharge the battery of an electric vehicle can easily be fitted into the regular patterns of car use characteristic of commuters.
Incorrect.
So using EVs for commuting seems manageable. The big issue commuters had with EVs was using them for extended trips. The producer came up with a plan to tackle that issue. How convenient EVs are for commuting does not help me understand whether the plan will be successful.

No impact.

(D) Although electric vehicles are essentially emission-free in actual use, generating the electricity necessary for charging an electric vehicle's battery can burden the environment.
Incorrect.
Ok, so EVs are not entirely environmentally friendly. That doesn’t tell me anything about whether the producer’s campaign will lead to more commuters buying EVs.

No impact.

(E) Some family vehicles are used primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips, such as to do errands.
Incorrect.
I believe one reason some people find this answer choice attractive is that they are not crystal clear about the goal. As I pointed out above, the goal is not to increase overall sales. The goal is more specific than that – to make purchasing EVs more attractive to commuters.

This answer choice is talking about vehicles not used for commuting. So, it has no impact on the producer’s plan.

Ok, now, what if the goal were more general?

Goal’: Increase sales of EVs (or, make purchasing EVs more attractive to customers).

Would this answer choice threaten the plan’s prospects then?

No.

One flawed reasoning goes along the following lines:

1. There are some vehicles that are used primarily for making short local trips.
2. So, those vehicles are anyway not used for extended trips.
3. Thus, a plan that offers a perk for extended trips will not be attractive to the owners of such vehicles.
4. Since the plan will be unattractive to at least one segment, the plan will probably fail.

The link created in the second point above is wrong. The answer choice tells us that these vehicles are primarily used for making short local trips. These vehicles could very well still be used for occasional extended trips as well. So, even if we generalized the goal, the answer choice would still be incorrect.

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.
_________________