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

Question

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.

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.

ArunSharma12 · Answer

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.

Here the author assumes that people deciding to walk drive a vehicle. So if they decide to walk, pollution will come down. 
 
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.
 these passengers are not part of reasoning and will not affect the level of pollution

(B)  Non moving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is, the more non moving running vehicles there are.
 number of non moving vehicles is not relevant to reasoning.

(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.
 This clearly states the effect of walking by drivers on level of pollution

(D)  On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.
 level of pollution caused by buses and cars is relevant

(E)  Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive might themselves decide to drive.
 This weakens the argument as the number of vehicles might increase

Ans: C

globaldesi · Answer

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.

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

(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.

IMO C
Argument states that every person not driving but walking is helping to reduce pollution so atleast some pollution is saved. What if we are saving more by not driving high pollution generating vehicles.

chaitralirr · Answer

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.

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.

Vordhosbn · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   GMATNinja Two 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?

AnirudhaS · Answer

(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.."

Vordhosbn · Answer

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

YashYashkratos · Answer

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.

8Harshitsharma · Answer

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👇🏼.

8Harshitsharma · Answer

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.

sriharsha4444 · Answer

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

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

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!

sriharsha4444 · Answer

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.

KarishmaB · Answer

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

_________________

Perfect scoring coach with a history of helping test-takers achieve their goals

https://martymurraycoaching.com/

Contact me for a free consultation.

Signature Read More

sriharsha4444 · Answer

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 ?

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

Azakura16 · Answer

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.

Cobyfuf · Answer

is the answer b or c? sorry for unrefined manner

Bunuel · Answer

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

MartyMurray · Answer

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

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

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

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