The Henry States that using car less will reduce total transport related carbon by 15 percent, whereas Bill States Car is responsible for 30% of such carbon emission in states.

Bill's response to Henry proceeds by

A. Refuting An Assumption On Which Henry's Argument Relies.(Yes Bill is discarding the information given by henry in his statement by increasing the total percent by 15%) (Correct)

B. discrediting Henry's argument by giving of erroneous information. (We don't know whether the information is right or wrong) (Incorrect)

C. arguing that the benefit of Henry's hypothetical measure might also be achieved in another way. (Bill hadn't suggested any measure in regards to the given problem) (Incorrect)

D. citing seemingly irrefutable evidence that contradicts one of the stated premises on which Henry's argument depends. (Henry's argument is not depended on what amount of carbon emission is reduced by using car less, but if the people start reducing car less and walk instead, the emission is the after result) (Incorrect)

E. providing additional information in support of Henry's argument (Bill is negating Henry's statement not supporting that) (Incorrect)

Posted from my mobile device

What is the Henry assumption?
Henry stated that If monthly mileage was reduced by 15%, the carbon emissions would reduce by 15%. In other words, he assumed that 1% reduction in mileage would lead to 1% reduction in carbon emissions.
Bill said that Cars are responsible for 30 percent of all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States. he means that there is no way 1% reduction in mileage would lead to 1% reduction in carbon emissions. Hence, Bill attacked Henry assumption.

D is wrong because Bill didnt provide an evidence which refutes his premises. Premises are all fine but he has drawn a wrong conclusion so his assumption is wrong and that is what Bill is attacking.

to understand this argument, we need to use some quant.

Henry: if govt. encourage car drivers to walk, that would reduce TR carbon emission by 15% i.e. if we imagine total TR carbon emission is 100 units it would be reduced to 85 units.

Bill: Cars are responsible for 30% of total TR carbon emissions. i.e
if total TR carbon emission is 100 units cars are emitting 30 units so 15% reduction mentioned by Henry in reality account 4.5%(15% of 30 units)

I understand that this is not the case for the test, but it seems to me that it is almost impossible to convince drivers to drive 5 miles less. I can’t imagine a way to force drivers to do this.

Can someone explain this one further? I don't see A.
_________________