GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 16 Dec 2018, 02:40

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
  • FREE Quant Workshop by e-GMAT!

     December 16, 2018

     December 16, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score.
  • Free GMAT Prep Hour

     December 16, 2018

     December 16, 2018

     03:00 PM EST

     04:00 PM EST

    Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics

Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
V
Joined: 30 Jan 2016
Posts: 833
Location: United States (MA)
Reviews Badge
Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2018, 08:40
2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

68% (02:09) correct 32% (02:18) wrong based on 141 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

_________________

Non progredi est regredi

SC Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1687
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 200 Q1 V1
GPA: 4
WE: Analyst (Retail)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2018, 09:03
1
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. - Correct. Connects the awareness to the fuel consumption and cost.

(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
Study Buddy Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1269
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2018, 16:21
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:
Quote:
(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


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

Quote:
(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes.

True, more taxes so consumers will buy less gasoline and this will eventually lead to less envro problems
Quote:
(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.

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.

Quote:
(D) The only cost considered by most consumers when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline.

THE ONLY - again too extreme. Ruled out since not supported by argument.
Quote:
(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.

No evidence about preference of consumers from argument that I can deduce.
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Feb 2014
Posts: 7
Re: Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2018, 16:29
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- This is extreme and I guess out of scope as well.

(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
Senior SC Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 2213
Premium Member CAT Tests
Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2018, 22:34
1
Akela wrote:
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 problemsto 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

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

adkikani wrote:
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.

This advice is specific to CR Conclusion ("Inference") questions.
It is even more specific to practicing with LR questions from the LSAT.

THE PROMPT
While reading the prompt: Allow yourself to believe. Make yourself believe.
No joke. The time for skepticism in this kind of question comes when you read the answers.

Track on premises, inferences, and assumptions.
Watch for causality words/phrases: hence, therefore, as a result, and thus
You are not looking for mistakes in the prompt.
You want to be led, by the prompt, very nearly to a conclusion.
And you want to understand how you got to that near-conclusion.

The conclusion will rarely be in the prompt.
The conclusion will almost always be in the answers.
Prompt says: A . . . B. . . . C.
Frequently, as here, the prompt hints very strongly at "D," the conclusion.

Given the prompt's information, which answer choice must result from it?

THE ANSWER CHOICES
While hunting for conclusion D in the answers:

1) Keep "MUST" in mind. IF the prompt is true, MUST this option also be true?
The correct answer is unavoidable. It's a must.
If the prompt must be true AND this answer could be false? Wrong answer.

2) Be on guard for under- and overstatement. Too weak and too strong.
The weak conclusion leaves out something important from the prompt.
The overstated conclusion requires us to add something TO the prompt.
Often too-strong conclusions use qualifiers the prompt does not support, e.g., only, always, inevitably, necessarily, never.

3) Careful with answers that could be "possible."
(Corollary of "must" rule.)
We don't need possible.
We need UNAVOIDABLE.
If THIS prompt is true (and it is), then THAT conclusion must follow.
It's a logical necessity.


The environmentalist's position is pretty simple:
Pollution is costly. Gas creates pollution, but its consumer purchase price does not include pollution costs.
As gas prices stand, the consumer neither makes decisions based upon, nor bears the costs of, pollution.
Impose heavy taxes on gasoline so that prices DO reflect pollution costs. Consumers will pollute less.

Things that are ALMOST stated, that are hinted at very strongly in the prompt include:
Gas prices can and should include costs.
Heavy taxes mean that gas prices will increase.
IF gas prices included pollution costs, consumers' decisions would be affected
Increased prices will cause drivers to choose to drive less.
Less driving equals less pollution.


Argument understanding:

Burning gasoline produces pollution which in turn results in enviro degradation.
Yes. Gas = pollution = serious environmental problems. No inferences here.
Logical connections asserted, but not inferred.


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

Pollution problems = costs.
Too-low gas prices do not include costs.
Consumers make certain choices about how much they will drive.
Too-low gas prices do not affect consumers' choices.

not sure
if people are even aware of this?)
[color=#0000ff]You are onto a very subtle inference.
Once you understand the main conclusion, see if you can connect them (it's hard!).


To restrict the distance people drive, the gasoline prices are planned to increase by
levying heavy taxes.
Almost. Heavier taxes = costs are included ("reflected) in gas prices.
Reflected costs = decreased pollution (asserted in prompt).
The prompt never says that gas prices will be higher.
But it's highly likely that she has inferred it, and that an answer will contain that inference.


Environmentalist believes that final consequence of this will be
that there will be less pollution.
90%. What does "this" refer to? Try to nail what "this" means.
BIG CONCLUSION of the prompt: Heavy taxes will result in less pollution.

We need to find an answer that is 100% true based in above
Almost. We need to assume that the environmentalist's statements are true.
If prompt is true, which sentence does the prompt "most strongly support"?
Given the prompt, which sentence is irrefutable?

Quote:
(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


SHOULD not be ... Avoid extreme language unless supported by argument.
Agreed, extreme language should put you on guard.
This conclusion is overstatement.
Rearranged logic. Option A's logic is "no X unless Y" or "X only if Y" logic.
The environmentalist's logic undercuts this conclusion.
Environmentalist: . . . there is strong causality between higher taxes and decreased pollution.
She says, "X will result in Y."
Option A's "X only if Y" forces us to add the "only if" hedge to the prompt.
The environmentalist does not hedge. Eliminate.


Quote:
(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes.

True, more taxes so consumers will buy less gasoline and this will eventually lead to less envro problems.
Not quite. You have located two inferences and the main conclusion.
Option B is possible. It is not unavoidable. It is not a must.
Say gas is taxed heavily. Say consumers pollute less.
Their presumably decreased driving does not require them to be more aware of pollution.
Further, Answer B connects higher prices and consumers' awareness.
Awareness does not equal action.
The prompt mentions decision-making. Says nothing about awareness and results from awareness. Eliminate.

Quote:
(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.

The arguments says that gasoline price will increase since envrio degradation is to be reduced.

Easy mistake. You reversed the logic.
You say: Environmental improvement causes gas prices to rise.

No. Environmental improvement does not cause gas prices to rise.
Rising gas prices cause environmental improvement.

C says that IF gas prices fully included pollution costs, consumers would buy less gas.
There is the conclusion "most strongly supported" by the prompt.
Costs "fully reflected" in prices (i.e. higher prices) cause consumers to buy less gas.
Less gas purchased = less pollution created by gas
That conclusion is exactly the sort that the prompt exhibits and supports.

Whether in future, consumers will buy less gasoline because of price hike? We do not know this.
You are correct. We don't know.
But we have assumed the environmentalist's statements to be true.
The environmentalist's premises and inferences lead to this main conclusion:
higher prices = less gas purchased = less pollution.

This sentence has "marker" words. When you see them, watch how they are used logically.
Marker words: consumers, cost, pollution, fully reflected, and price of gasoline.

Quote:
(D) The only cost considered by most consumers when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline.

THE ONLY - again too extreme. Ruled out since not supported by argument.
Correct! The prompt does focus exclusively on gasoline cost.
But the prompt makes no claims about exclusive causes.
We would have to add "exclusively" to the prompt. Overstatement.
Eliminate
Quote:
(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.

No evidence about preference of consumers from argument that I can deduce.

Option E might be dangerous.
It sounds as if it parallels the prompt.
It manages to capture quite a bit of the prompt's logic.
The prompt DOES argue that consumers' decisions about how much to drive MUST be affected (changed) in order to decrease pollution.
However . . . "Only if" is much too strong. The prompt is nowhere near this strident or insistent.
This option fails to mention taxes and gasoline prices.
Taxes and prices are the mechanisms by which the prompt's logical result is achieved. Eliminate.



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.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8678
Location: Pune, India
Re: Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Feb 2018, 04:35
1
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.




adkikani wrote:
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:
Quote:
(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


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

Quote:
(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes.

True, more taxes so consumers will buy less gasoline and this will eventually lead to less envro problems
Quote:
(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.

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.

Quote:
(D) The only cost considered by most consumers when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline.

THE ONLY - again too extreme. Ruled out since not supported by argument.
Quote:
(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.

No evidence about preference of consumers from argument that I can deduce.

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jan 2018
Posts: 8
Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Feb 2018, 04:53
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes &nbs [#permalink] 27 Feb 2018, 04:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.