Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
05 Dec 2024, 03:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
34% (02:19) correct
66%
(02:26)
wrong
based on 230
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
05 Dec 2024, 03:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
07 Dec 2024, 04:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
