Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes

Question

Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes to serious environmental problems. But the cost of these problems is not reflected in gasoline prices, and hence usually does not affect consumers' decisions about how much to drive. Heavier taxes on gasoline, however, would reflect this cost, and as a result consumers would pollute less.

The environmentalist's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) The cost of pollution from driving should not be reflected in the price of gasoline unless the amount of pollution produced would be reduced as a result.
(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes.
(C) Consumers would purchase less gasoline, on average, if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline.
(D) The only cost considered by most consumers when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline.
(E) Pollution from gasoline burned by cars will be reduced only if consumers give more consideration to the cost of that pollution when deciding bow much to drive.

Source: LSAT

Kurtosis · Answer

Question Type: Inference

Argument: Heavier taxes on gasoline would reflect the cost involved in causing environment problems and hence will result in less pollution.

(A) The cost of pollution from driving should not be reflected in the price of gasoline unless the amount of pollution produced would be reduced as a result. - Opposite.

(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes. - Out of context. We are not worried about consumers' awareness of the different kinds of environment problems

(C) Consumers would purchase less gasoline, on average, if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline.

(D) The only cost considered by most consumers when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline. - Too strong. We do not know whether this is the only cost considered.

(E) Pollution from gasoline burned by cars will be reduced only if consumers give more consideration to the cost of that pollution when deciding bow much to drive. - Same as D.

Answer: C

adkikani · Answer

GMATNinjaTwo   VeritasPrepKarishma   GMATNinja   generis

Before I present my understanding of argument, can you please
advise on how to keep my ears open even while reading answers
with extreme options such as SHOULD in an inference question.

Argument understanding:

Burning gasoline produces pollution which in turn results in enviro degradation.

There is no control on how much people drive in spite of this pollution (not sure
if people are even aware of this?)

To restrict the distance people drive, the gasoline prices are planned to increase by
levying heavy taxes. Environmentalist believes that final consequence of this will be 
that there will be less pollution.

We need to find an answer that is 100% true based in above:

SHOULD not be ... Avoid extreme language unless supported by argument.

True, more taxes so consumers will buy less gasoline and this will eventually lead to less envro problems
 
The arguments says that gasoline price will increase since envrio degradation is to be reduced.
Whether in future, consumers will buy less gasoline because of price hike? We do not know this.

THE ONLY - again too extreme. Ruled out since not supported by argument.
 
No evidence about preference of consumers from argument that I can deduce.

avikjha · Answer

I was confused between C & D. However, finally went through C as after carefully reading option D, I realised that the word "only" is making it more particular and not the right answer.

(A) The cost of pollution from driving should not be reflected in the price of gasoline unless the amount of pollution produced would be reduced as a result

(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes-  We can't guarantee and anyway it's not about creating awareness by increase price. Deduction is- More price- less consumption of fuel.
 
(E)Pollution from gasoline burned by cars will be reduced only if consumers give more consideration to the cost of that pollution when deciding bow much to drive.-  for me it's OOS

generis · Answer

For a moment I thought I was having a nightmare. No, it's not real.

I have already taken the LSAT. And graduated from law school. Whew. Oh, my. adkikani , this kind of question gets whole books written about it. LR questions are 50 percent of the LSAT. 50 of 100 questions are LR. Some people think it is good to practice with LSAT logical reasoning questions because the number of official CR questions available is limited, and because LSAT questions are harder. Here is one set of LSAT logic questions posted on GMAT club with permission from Aristotle . One Magoosh expert described LSAT logical reasoning questions as "like the GMAT on Human Growth Hormone ." Just know that LSAT LR are harder than CR.

KarishmaB · Answer

This is not correct. Mind you, you have to take everything given in the argument to be true.

Question stem: The environmentalist's statements,  if true , most strongly support which one of the following? 
You are looking for the conclusion from the options.

So basically, this is true: Heavier taxes on gasoline, however, would reflect this cost, and as a result consumers would pollute less. Cost of the problems will affect consumers' decision about how much to drive.

(C) Consumers would purchase less gasoline, on average, if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline.

Then (C) must be correct. The consumers will pollute less and their decision on how much to drive will be affected so if the cost of problems is reflected in price, they will buy less gasoline.

(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes.
This is not necessarily true. Their decisions on how much to drive will be altered because of the higher gas prices but whether their awareness on kinds of env problems will increase or not, we don't know.

Also, I don't understand the logic of "Avoid extreme language unless supported by argument." 
- It is a conclusion question. You have to ignore everything that is not supported by the argument. Also, extreme language ("only", "all" etc) doesn't make an option less suitable. The argument could very well warrant it.

sarthak2709 · Answer

Conclusion is - Because of heavier taxes on gasoline, consumers would pollute less. ( Reason - cost of environmental problems is reflected in increased prices for the gasoline)
(A) The cost of pollution from driving should not be reflected in the price of gasoline unless the amount of pollution produced would be reduced as a result.  Out of scope. 
(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes.  Out of scope, conclusion is not getting supported in anyways 
(C) Consumers would purchase less gasoline, on average, if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline.  Correct.  
(D) The only cost considered by most consumers when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline. Hard to negate this.  Need help in negating this option.  
(E) Pollution from gasoline burned by cars will be reduced only if consumers give more consideration to the cost of that pollution when deciding bow much to drive.  Out of scope.

CEdward · Answer

Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes to serious environmental problems. But the cost of these problems is not reflected in gasoline prices, and hence usually does not affect consumers' decisions about how much to drive. Heavier taxes on gasoline, however, would reflect this cost, and as a result consumers would pollute less.

The environmentalist's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) The cost of pollution from driving  should not be reflected  in the price of gasoline  unless the amount of pollution produced would be reduced as a result . X
This is taking things too far and spins the argument in a different light.
(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the  kinds  of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes. 
This one is tricky. The key word to hone in on here is 'kinds'. The COST of the environmental problems is not reflected in gasoline prices, but this DOES NOT mean that heavier taxes would increase awareness of the KINDS of problems associated with pollution
(C) Consumers would purchase less gasoline, on average, if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline.  CORRECT 
(D) The  only  cost considered by most consumers when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline. X
We don't know what other costs they might be considering.
(E) Pollution from gasoline burned by cars will be reduced  only if  consumers give more consideration to the cost of that pollution when deciding bow much to drive. X
Again...this takes things too far...there are other means by which pollution can be reduced.

unraveled · Answer

Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes to serious environmental problems. But the cost of these problems is not reflected in gasoline prices, and hence usually does not affect consumers' decisions about how much to drive. Heavier taxes on gasoline, however, would reflect this cost, and as a result consumers would pollute less.

The environmentalist's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) The cost of pollution from driving should not be reflected in the price of gasoline  unless  the amount of pollution produced would be reduced as a result. - WRONG. There is no conditionality in the passage.
(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase  consumers' awareness  of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes. - WRONG. 2nd best but falters since consumers' awareness is bit of an extreme to think of.
(C)  Consumers would purchase less gasoline, on average , if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline. - CORRECT. This would make them pollute less.
(D) The  only cost considered by most consumers  when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline. - WRONG. This cannot be inferred. 
(E) Pollution from gasoline burned by cars will be reduced  only if  consumers give more consideration to the cost of that pollution when deciding bow much to drive. - WRONG. There is no conditionality in the passage.

Answer C.

egmat · Answer

The argument gives us a clear causal chain:

1. Environmental cost is NOT in gas prices → doesn't affect driving decisions
2. Heavier taxes WOULD reflect this cost → WOULD affect decisions
3. Result → consumers pollute less

The Key Inference:
HOW do consumers pollute less? They must drive less.
And if they drive less, they buy less gasoline.

Answer: C

Choice C says: consumers would purchase less gasoline if the cost were reflected in price.

This directly follows from the stimulus. The chain is:
Tax → price reflects cost → affects decisions → pollute less → drive less → buy less gas

Why the other choices fail:

(A) "Should not be reflected UNLESS pollution would be reduced"
Trap: This makes a normative claim (what "should" happen). The stimulus never says we shouldn't reflect costs unless pollution decreases.

(B) "Would increase awareness of the kinds of environmental problems"
Trap: The stimulus talks about cost affecting behavior, not awareness of types of problems. This goes beyond the passage.

(D) "The ONLY cost considered"
Common mistake: Too extreme! The stimulus says environmental cost is NOT considered, but never claims gas cost is the ONLY factor. Consumers might also consider time, convenience, etc.

(E) "Will be reduced ONLY IF consumers give more consideration"
Common mistake: The word "only" makes this a necessary condition claim. The passage doesn't say this is the sole way to reduce pollution.

Takeaway: On inference questions, stick strictly to what the passage supports. Watch out for extreme language ("only," "should," "must") that goes beyond the given information.

Hope this helps!

Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards