If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehic

If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.

Stimulus: if a person chooses to walk rather than drive there will be one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. So if people choose to walk whenever possible the pollution will be greatly reduced.

IMO B if people choose to walk rather than drive the congestion can be avoided and there will be less pollution.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?


(A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will be fewer vehicles on the road as a result.

(B) Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is, the more nonmoving running vehicles there are.

(C) Since different vehicles can pollute at different rates, it is possible for one driver who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.

(D) On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.

(E) Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive might themselves decide to drive.

Hi GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo would you mind taking a look at this question? Like most other people here I went with option C, but OA says the correct answer is B. Any chance you could shed some light here?

(C) Since different vehicles can pollute at different rates, it is possible for one driver who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.

C says it is possible to make a greater contribution from one driver who drives a gas guzzler.
But C never claims that this will reduce pollution. C only states a hypothetical scenario, with a structure "if this happens, then it will result in this.."

Appreciate the response, but (B) doesn't also scream reduction tbh.

B) clear winner
it's a strengthen question and B says the pollution caused by congestion will ALSO reduce giving one more reason that the plan is the right move.
C) might seem close to some because we don't actually know who currently does or will after the plan choose to do so it does not make a sure point.

B it is. Consider this, if it takes on average 3 hrs for a person to go daily from A to B. He emits gasses (🫢) for 3 hrs straight at a moving-vehicle-consumption rate. But if there is congestion - meaning more vehicles on the road - then his gas will be moving-vehicle-consumption for 3hrs + non-moving-vehicle-consumption for few hours -> This implies that more congestion☝️ more pollution ☝️. This strengthens the claim that fewer people on the road == significant pollution reduction🫱🏻‍🫲🏿 because of lesser congestion👇🏼.

Also, to add, choice A is not out of scope because the conclusion - talking about greatly reducing pollution - is a logical leap from the premise - talking specifically about people who "drive". This gap leaves ample space for such assumptions about different people and vehicles alike. Thus ruling out choice A saying that it is OOS is incorrect.

Choice A is wrong because it is a conditional statement "if people who ride, walk, they can contribute" but does this mean such people "will" walk? Well, what if it is NOT feasible for such people to walk? Thus they become immune to the criteria of walking as stated in the argument, and hence, this choice is incorrect because it is not a true "definite" strengthener unlike choice B.­

GMATNinja ChiranjeevSingh AnishPassi KarishmaB GMATIntensive ScottTargetTestPrep could any of you take a stab at this one ?­

A suggestion: ­Don't waste your time on such questions (a non-official question in which accuracy is less than 50%). I have already wasted my 5 minutes!

­
hi CJ,
I think it is an LSAT question plus today it is posted as CR question of the day by GMAT club in Instagram and Facebook.

­
If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise.
Conclusion: If people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.

We need to strengthen that people choosing to walk instead of driving (whenever possible) will greatly reduce pollution.

(A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will be fewer vehicles on the road as a result.

Our discussion is on people who drive. If they choose to walk, we could reduce pollution. The other ways of reducing pollution are out of scope. Can bus riders reduce pollution by walking? We don't care in our analysis of this argument.

(B) Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is, the more nonmoving running vehicles there are.

This option gives us another benefit of walking instead of driving. Of course, to go from A to B, if you walk and not drive, you save on pollution that you would have caused to go from A to B (say 1 m^3 of particulates in 10 mins it takes you to drive from A to B without any stops).
But also, you reduce congestion on the road which means you reduce "nonmoving running vehicle" time. Say to go from A to B, you need 10 mins but there is a congested road in between on which you are stopped for another 10 mins (so total time taken to reach is 20 mins). During this time on this road, the vehicle is emitting 0.5 m^3 of particulates. If we can eliminate congestion by reducing vehciles on the road, this nonmoving running vehicle time will be eliminated too and hence the 0.5 m^3 pollution will go away too. Hence it strengthens that every time someone chooses to walk instead of drive, they reduce pollution.

(C) Since different vehicles can pollute at different rates, it is possible for one driver who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.

The amount of contribution to pollution reduction doesn't matter. We are claiming that choosing to walk will reduce pollution greatly. Even if one person causes less reduction (because he drives a hybrid) while another causes more reduction (because he drives a truck), still the choice of walking adds up to reduction in pollution. We don't need to compare the relative reduction caused by different people by choosing to walk instead of drive.

(D) On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.

The comparison is between driving vs walking, not between buses vs cars. Ignore.

(E) Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive might themselves decide to drive.­

This is something that weakens our conclusion. This tells us why choosing to walk instead of driving may still not reduce pollution - because others who rode with you (and did not drive on their own) will start driving now.

Answer (B)­

Discussion on Strengthen Questions:
https://youtu.be/mB8bm_a4GNk­

­But KarishmaB, the conclusion, though sounds ridiculous to see it this way, is about people in general right. So in that case, automobile passengers and the option 1 also becomes relevant right ? Am I missing something ?­

­The conclusion is derived from the context and isn't just the words. When the author says, "But, I don't agree," we derive what he means by that. In harder level questions, the most difficult part is to identify the conclusion correctly. As you rightly said, it sounds comical to say that the conclusion is simply:
"if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced." without the context for walk.

One must say "if people would walk instead of drive whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced" and that makes sense.

Premise: If a person chooses to walk instead of drive, there’s one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there otherwise would be.
Conclusion: If people chose to walk when feasible, pollution would be greatly reduced.

We’re looking to strengthen the argument.

A. This is irrelevant. We don’t know if the passengers were the reason for the trip in this scenario, or if the trip would still need to occur. If it still needed to occur for the driver, no pollution would be saved.
B. This strengthens the argument. If more people walk, they avoid generating the pollution that would come from driving their own car. Additionally, they lessen traffic congestion by not adding a car to the road, so the remaining autos can get to their destinations more quickly and with less nonmoving time.
C. While this is tempting, it doesn’t strengthen the conclusion, because it’s focusing on individual potential differences instead of overall differences in pollution. We’re looking to greatly reduce pollution overall.
D. This is irrelevant, because it’s discussing the difference between buses and autos, but the conclusion is concerned with the difference between walking and driving.
E. This weakens the argument. If one person decided not to drive themself and a friend to a location, and instead chose to walk, but the friend then drove, the reduction in pollution might be negated.
Best answer is B.

is the answer b or c? sorry for unrefined manner

You can check the official answer (OA) under the spoiler in the original post. It's B.

If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced

The support for the conclusion is the following:

If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise.

We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically the following: Vehicles emit pollution, and if a person walks rather than drives, one less vehicle is in operation. So, if people walk rather than drive, pollution will be greatly reduced.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?

This is a strengthen question, and the correct answer will provide additional support for the conclusion.

(A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will be fewer vehicles on the road as a result.

The argument is about people walking rather than driving.

This choice is about people walking rather than riding.

The fact that people walking rather than riding will cause there to be fewer vehicles on the road does not mean that people walking rather than driving will result in a reduction in pollution.

Eliminate.

(B) Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is, the more nonmoving running vehicles there are.

This choice is interesting.

The argument supports the conclusion by indicating that, by walking, a person can reduce the number of polluting vehicles on the road.

Now, this choice adds another reason to believe that, by walking, people can greatly reduce pollution.

After all, common sense tells us that, if a people reduce the number of vehicles on the road by walking, congestion will be reduced.

In that case, given what this choice says, the time vehicles spend polluting while not moving because of congestion will also be reduced.

So, this choice supports the conclusion from another angle. The passage presents the "one less vehicle emitting pollution" angle, and this choice brings up the reduction in "congestion" angle, both of which result from people choosing to walk rather than drive.

Thus, this choice strengthens the argument.

Keep.

(C) Since different vehicles can pollute at different rates, it is possible for one driver who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.

The conclusion is that "if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced."

So, notice that this choice does not indicate that people walking will serve to "greatly" reduce pollution.

Rather, this choice indicates only that different drivers can reduce pollution by different amounts depending on which vehicles they would drive if they didn't walk.

OK, great, but do those amounts add up to a great reduction in pollution? This choice doesn't indicate that they do.

After all, different amounts could be different big amounts or different insignificant amounts. So, the fact that drivers can make different contributions to pollution prevention by walking doesn't mean that, through people's walking, pollution will be "greatly" reduced.

Eliminate.

(D) On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.

These facts about buses don't mean that, by walking rather than driving vehicles, people will reduce pollution.

After all, the point of the argument is not about people riding as passengers in buses. It's about people walking rather than driving vehicles.

Eliminate.

(E) Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive might themselves decide to drive.­

This choice weakens, rather than strengthens, the argument.

After all, if a driver's deciding to walk might result in others who were passengers deciding to drive, then a driver's deciding to walk may make no difference in pollution or even result in an increase since the reduction in pollution accomplished by the person who decided to walk might be offset by an increase in pollution by others.

Eliminate.

Correct answer: B