Quote:
I do not think it is right to project electric cars as better than gas-fuelled cars. One negative aspect of electric cars is the fact that they don’t have enough power and, as a result, enough acceleration to perform in certain driving situations. For example, this lack of power could be dangerous in driving situations when fast acceleration is needed to avoid an accident.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?
(A) Electric cars are much better for the ecology than are gas fuelled ones.
(B) Electric cars are much cheaper to run than are gas fuelled cars.
(C) The price of fuel is only expected to increase in the future whereas the price of technology used in the manufacture of electric cars is expected to decrease.
(D) The biggest reason for road accidents is over speeding, which is the direct result of increased power in a car.
(E) In the future, electric cars are expected to have much more powerful engines than do current electric cars.
Premise: Electric cars don’t have enough power/acceleration to perform in certain driving situations.
Premise: This lack of power could be dangerous in situations where fast acceleration is required to avoid an accident.
Conclusion: It’s not right to project electric cars as superior to gas-fuelled cars.
We’re looking to weaken the argument.
A. Irrelevant. This argument is not concerned with ecology.
B. Irrelevant. We’re not talking about cost.
C. Irrelevant. We’re not talking about future costs either.
D. This weakens the argument. If the cause of the accidents the author cites is speeding, which is made possible by gas-powered engines, then electric cars could still be superior if they prevent potential accidents from happening.
E. Irrelevant. We’re not talking about the future.
Best answer is D.