A public health organization has proposed preventing further

A public health organization has proposed preventing further degradation of air quality through tougher emissions standards on automobiles.


The proposed standards will decrease the incidence of asthma and other respiratory ailments.

Tougher standards than those that are currently in place, however, will require expensive modifications to automobiles now on the road and will add to the cost of new automobiles.

The costs of further reducing emissions will outweigh the medical costs saved as a result of the decrease in asthma attacks and other respiratory problems.


Therefore, there is no economic rationale for requiring further reductions in automobile emissions.


economic rationale => country will save something out of it.

what if we can introduce productivity factor in the whole scenrio. People more healthy => more efficient ,more productive => economy growth.

what if we can connect "reducing emission" to "high export" : Like some nation that import from the nation/ economy we talking about, and if they introduuce tougher emissions standards that matches to their own standard, they will buy from the the nation/ economy.



Which of the following, if true, would undermine the conclusion that there is no economic rationale for requiring further reductions in automobile emissions?


E. Other costs, such as lost wages, incurred by those who suffer from respiratory illness caused by automobile emissions are far greater than the medical costs they incur.

I got this Question... Still can anyone please explain what is wrong with Option A....

conclusion ==there is no economic rationale for requiring further reductions in automobile emissions--we need to weaken

we need to prove that there is some economic benefit , if laws are amended or added ...

Now A is simply telling --economic factors should not control the decision making process.-- it does not weaken conclusion. it is not pointing that if laws are amended , there will be some benefit ...As rightly said earlier , this is kind of opinion ..

Hi , sobby

Why can't Opinion be correct answer choice?

lets take it this way :

Me:there is no economic rationale for requiring further reductions in automobile emissions.--means no monetary benefit....

Now u have to undermine my statement..Giving at least some counter point that can prove yes , we have monetary benefit

You :In matters of public health, economic factors should not control the decision making process

My question:

Now are u undermining my argument ??have u given any reason that reduction in emission is beneficial...???just you are putting a point of view ...

concentrate on question stem , what we need to undermine ....Then u ll see , u are actually talking some thing not specific.

sobby

Thanks buddy. Got your reasoning..

Just to cement my understanding, this is specific case we are talking about. However in general, do we have kind rule that opinion can't be correct answer choice? Is that case?

No , we don't have rule as such ...Here we have specific conclusion to weaken so ,option A was out of context ...

sayantanc2k - Could you please why option B is wrong?

I chose the correct option but still i want to enhance my pre-thinking skills.

As for this weakening question we have to basically not refute the statement but rather show that there is some economical benefit for the proposed laws. (Please correct me if i am wrong here)

Could you please help with me with the B and E option as why E is the OA.

The words "would undermine the conclusion" indicate that this is a Weaken question. The correct answer will make it less likely that the conclusion follows from the stated evidence.

The conclusion is that there is no economic justification for the proposal. The evidence is that the costs of the proposal outweigh the saved medical costs from asthma attacks and other respiratory problems.

Notice how extreme the language of the conclusion is, claiming there is "no economic rationale," even though the evidence just mentioned medical costs. The author is assuming that there are no economic costs involved besides the stated medical ones. The correct choice will attack the author's assumption. It will suggest some other economic costs, besides the medical costs mentioned in the evidence, that undermine the conclusion that there is no economic rational for further reductions in automobile emissions.

(E) suggests that there are costs involved besides the medical costs the author admits to. This undermines the conclusion that there is no economic rationale for reducing emissions, making (E) the correct choice.

(A) is incorrect because whether or not economic factors should control the decision making process, the author argues only on economic factors. The correct choice must attack the argument on its own terms.

(B) makes an irrelevant comparison. Both costs mentioned in (B) are already accounted for by the author in the total costs of reducing emissions. All that matters to the author's argument is the total costs, not the breakdown of the costs.

(C) is a 180. If the medical costs will decrease, then it is more likely they will be outweighed by the costs of modifying automobiles and additional costs to new cars. This would strengthen the author's argument.

(D) is irrelevant. However the costs of the modifications that will be required compare to voluntary modifications consumers are already making, the question is whether the overall costs, in aggregate, outweigh the medical costs. (D) has nothing to do with that.

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB

Can you please share your evaluation of option D. I did not mark this option, however, I am unable to come up with a good reasoning to eliminate it. Giving it consideration since it is weaken question, so even 1% weaken can be good answer choice so want to be thorough with the reasoning