In order to reduce dependence on imported oil, the government of Jalic

To reduce imports of oil, fuel efficiency standards have been imposed on new cars. (the aim is to reduce fuel usage)
The more fuel-efficient a car, the less pollution it produces per mile driven. (a positive side effect is that more fuel efficient car causes less pollution per mile driven presumably because it burns less fuel per mile)

As old cars will be replaced with new, annual pollution from car traffic is likely to decrease in Jalica.

Annual pollution from cars means total pollution in the year from cars.

So here is the thing - the new cars will create less pollution per mile driven. But what if they are driven for more miles? Then overall, they may cause more total pollution in the year.

(A) In Jalica, domestically produced oil is more expensive than imported oil.
Price of oil is irrelevant.

(B) The Jalican government did not intend the new fuel-efiiciency requirement to be a pollution-reduction measure.
Doesn't matter whether it was considered or not. The new fuel efficiency req leads to lower pollution per mile.

(C) Some pollution-control devices mandated in Jalica make cars less fuel-efficient than they would be without those devices.
The pollution control devices are mandated (necessary) in Jalica. They make cars less fuel efficient than the cars would be without those devices. This is irrelevant. All cars have these devices. Old cars have them. New cars will have them too. So this is not a point of distinction between the old and the new cars. This is like saying that the seats used in cars in Jalica are heavy and lead to less fuel efficiency. If lighter seats were used, the cars would become more fuel efficient. This is beyond the scope of our argument. We are not discussing what else could lead to higher fuel efficiency. We are discussing that the new cars are more fuel efficient than the old cars. The comparison is between the old and the new cars. Any element that is common to them is not a point of distinction and is irrelevant to our argument.

(D) The new regulation requires no change in the chemical formulation of fuel for cars in Jalica.
Doesn't impact our argument.

(E) Jalicans who get cars that are more fuel-efficient tend to do more driving than before.
Correct. New cars will be driven for more miles. Even if they emit less pollution per mile, if they are driven for more miles, overall they may emit more pollution.

Answer (E)

In order to reduce dependence on imported oil, the government of Jalica has imposed minimum fuel-efficiency requirements on all new cars, beginning this year. The more fuel-efficient a car, the less pollution it produces per mile driven. As Jalicans replace their old cars with cars that meet the new requirements, annual pollution from car traffic is likely to decrease in Jalica.

Type - weaken
Boil it down - As Jalicans replace their old cars with cars with new fuel - efficiency standards, fuel consumption will decrease and thus annual pollution from car traffic will decrease
- The argument assumes the fuel consumption will not increase - either the people drive more now or the number of people who drive cars increase substantially

A. In Jalica, domestically produced oil is more expensive than imported oil. - Irrelevant - we are not concerned about the costs

B. The Jalican government did not intend the new fuel-efiiciency requirement to be a pollution- reduction measure. - Irrelevant - although pollution reduction was not a goal, it happened to be a by-product of new fuel efficiency requirement

C. Some pollution-control devices mandated in Jalica make cars less fuel-efiicient than they would be without those devices. - The argument does not discuss pollution control devices

D. The new regulation requires no change in the chemical formulation of fimel for cars in Jalica. - Irrelevant

E. Jalicans who get cars that are more fuel-eflicient tend to do more driving than before. - Correct - if people tend to drive more now , then fuel consumption will increase


Answer E

Hi Experts,

Can you explain why option C is incorrect? If some devices are less efficient, then the cars with such devices would cause more pollution. The option suggests that cause will take place ----> Effect won't

This hurts the argument. Doesn't it?

The key is "some" here, which can be as low as one in a sample space of 100.

So, if 1 or 2 car/cars is less efficient in a sample space of 10,000 cars - then does it hurt the conclusion ?

Cheers !!

Hi Skywalker

I understand how you might argue answer B to be irrelevant. But does this point not make the argument irrelevant and, thus, weaker? Weakest?

I would have happily gone in the direction of something to do with pollution control, etc, etc for my answer. But the subject of the Government statement is not about reduction of pollution, rather the reduction of dependence on imported oil.

I feel like the question, "which of the following... MOST seriously weakens the argument?" is subjective and if the subject of the government statement is dependence on imported oil, I feel like answer (B) makes the entire argument irrelevant is the most correct (my subjective experience) and all the other answers only weaken the argument.

Due to the fact that the government went from reduction of dependence to pollution reduction would suggest to the trained eye that either the statement maker is unreliable or lying, thus, not credible > irrelevant. Again, the subject of this argument is reduction of dependence on oil, not pollution control.

I also feel like answer E could be correct but your explanation ("Correct - if people tend to drive more now , then fuel consumption will increase ") does nothing to address reduction of independence on imported oil which is the subject of the argument.

And the books justification to the correct answer does little to shed light, "a government policy may have consequences that the government did not intent it to have." What consequences? And how does this justify that answer B is less correct than E? If the "consequences" are more driving (more dependence on imported oil), is this not weakening the argument?

Maybe I'm missing something.

Is E the correct answer because more driving creates more pollution and increases a dependency on imported oil?

I'd like to suss out what GMAC is looking for most in an answer.

Thanks in advance to anyone that can help.

Eric


In order to reduce dependence on imported oil, the government of Jalica has imposed minimum fuel-efficiency requirements on all new cars, beginning this year. The more fuel-efficient a car, the less pollution it produces per mile driven. As Jalicans replace their old cars with cars that meet the new requirements, annual pollution from car traffic is likely to decrease in Jalica.

Type - weaken
Boil it down - As Jalicans replace their old cars with cars with new fuel - efficiency standards, fuel consumption will decrease and thus annual pollution from car traffic will decrease
- The argument assumes the fuel consumption will not increase - either the people drive more now or the number of people who drive cars increase substantially

A. In Jalica, domestically produced oil is more expensive than imported oil. - Irrelevant - we are not concerned about the costs

B. The Jalican government did not intend the new fuel-efiiciency requirement to be a pollution- reduction measure. - Irrelevant - although pollution reduction was not a goal, it happened to be a by-product of new fuel efficiency requirement

C. Some pollution-control devices mandated in Jalica make cars less fuel-efiicient than they would be without those devices. - The argument does not discuss pollution control devices

D. The new regulation requires no change in the chemical formulation of fimel for cars in Jalica. - Irrelevant

E. Jalicans who get cars that are more fuel-eflicient tend to do more driving than before. - Correct - if people tend to drive more now , then fuel consumption will increase


Answer E

Hi
I am Stuck up B & E.

My analysis as follows

B: As Govt didnt intend it as pollution reduction measure, Wont it make the conclusion less believable ?

E : More driving than earlier after getting equipped with fuel efficient;
More driving than earlier --> More KM--> Pollution will not likely to decrease.
Shatters the Conclusion.

Kindly let me know where i am faltered?

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the term 'fuel efficiency'. Fuel efficiency does not mean less pollution; it only means more mileage for a given quantity of fuel.
'Some' fuel efficiency devices being less fuel-efficient need not bother us because 'some' means minority and when a minority is there, a majority is bound to be there to offset the minority's effect.

As the passage has amply indicated, the govt's aim is only to reduce dependence on imported oil, thereby reduce foreign exchange outflow. It is not a pollution control measure.

Govt. is bringing in new fuel-efficiency measures while C talks of an irrelevant aspect of pollution control devices because the Govt. never intended to bring about fuel efficiency through pollution control devices.

The takeaway: forget pollution control for the time being as the same used here as a ploy to deviate attention.

To a pointed question as to why reduced dependence relates to fuel efficiency: When you use fuel-efficient automobiles, you get better mileage. It will mean that the country will import less foreign oil overall over a period time. This is a direct saving for the country.

Option B - This is already mentioned in the passage indirectly. The fuel-efficiency requirement was aimed at decreasing dependency on imported oil. This is no new information.

Thus, this choice is incorrect.

Option E - This option shows that the Jalicans finally end up driving more miles when driving a fuel-efficient car. And this means more pollution added per mile driven. Ultimately the expected decrease in car traffic pollution will be an unlikely event.

This is in line with our weakener.

Thus, this is the correct choice.

Hope this helps.

In order to reduce dependence on imported oil, the government of Jalica has imposed minimum fuel-efficiency requirements on all new cars, beginning this year. The more fuel-efficient a car, the less pollution it produces per mile driven. As Jalicans replace their old cars with cars that meet the new requirements, annual pollution from car traffic is likely to decrease in Jalica.

P: Government imposed minimum fuel-efficiency requirements on all new cars
P: Increased efficiency leads to less pollution
C: Annual pollution is likely to decrease as people replace older cars with cars that meet requirements

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument‘?

(A) In Jalica, domestically produced oil is more expensive than imported oil.

One could argue that this strengthens the argument. If domestically produced oil is more expensive, this would disincentivize people from driving more. Less miles driven means less pollution.

(B) The Jalican government did not intend the new fuel-efiiciency requirement to be a pollution-reduction measure.

Whether the government intended for the requirement to be a pollution reduction measure is besides the point. So long as more fuel-efficient cars are on the road, the annual pollution is likely to decrease. The argument still works.

(C) Some pollution-control devices mandated in Jalica make cars less fuel-efficient than they would be without those devices.

This choice is interesting. The implication of this choice is that it’s meant to give us reason to doubt that the newly imposed regulation would work. But, the fact is the switch to fuel-efficient cars is still likely to get that pollution to decrease. Argument still works. Out.

I do find the reasoning ‘out-of-scope’ a bit of a cop-out when it comes to reasoning. And to be frank, I don’t like my rationale here. Often times answers for CR questions are seemingly unrelated to the original passage, and I really don’t think we can apply a broad stroke and say that there is a hard rule of simply eliminating all ‘irrelevant/out-of-scope’ answers’. The only reason I crossed this one out is because E is clearly the answer.

(D) The new regulation requires no change in the chemical formulation of fuel for cars in Jalica.

This seems to suggest that in order to produce less pollution that a change needs to be made to the fuel. Possibly, who knows. Either way, the argument still stands because the emphasis is on new cars that are more fuel efficient.

(E) Jalicans who get cars that are more fuel-efficient tend to do more driving than before.


Correct. While the new cars may be more fuel efficient, the net amount of pollution produced could be higher still if people are just flat out driving more.

Hey, CEdward I like your explanation for option C.

Yes! There is no hard rule for eliminating the 'out-of-scope' answers because it ultimately boils down to preference among options.
Unfortunately, some of the GMATClubbers eliminate options on this 'irrelevant/out-of-scope' reasoning . They should definitely avoid elimination on such a basis.

Option E is good weakner than option C.

C is irrelevant .The reason is we need to stick to premise given in the argument. Premise says : there would be minimum fuel-efficiency requirements. Now our target should be that cars would be more efficient over a threshold.
Suppose some cars were high efficient , much over threshold limit and after installing devices, they became less efficient than before but still over threshold. How does it matter? We don't have information about cars that were lower than threshold and those cars that have improved. our concern is about such cars to derive the meaningful information on reduction of pollution.

This option could be weakner if there was no information about cars fuel efficiency in premise. We need to accept our premise as such and look for gap between premise and conclusion. option C doesn't bridge the gap hence C is not a good option and is not inline with reasoning.

MartyTargetTestPrep, VeritasKarishma,
Pasting the argument for easy reference.

In order to reduce dependence on imported oil, the government of Jalica has imposed minimum fuel-efficiency requirements on all new cars, beginning this year. The more fuel-efficient a car, the less pollution it produces per mile driven. As Jalicans replace their old cars with cars that meet the new requirements, annual pollution from car traffic is likely to decrease in Jalica.
Conclusion: Annual pollution from car traffic is likely to decrease in Jalica

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument‘?

(A) In Jalica, domestically produced oil is more expensive than imported oil.

This has no impact on the conclusion. We do not have information whether being oil expensive will affect any peopl's choice of driving car less frequently.

(B) The Jalican government did not intend the new fuel-efiiciency requirement to be a pollution-reduction measure.

This has no impact on the conclusion.We already know that the government brought this requirement in order to reduce dependency on imported oil.

(C) Some pollution-control devices mandated in Jalica make cars less fuel-efficient than they would be without those devices.

- I thought earlier that this would weaken the conclusion. My reasoning is since we know that since few devices would make cars less fuel efficient, this would increase the pollution while other fuel efficient cars will decrease pollution. I often falter in this "some" category answers. My point is that since we do not know that effectively it will lead to overall increase in pollution, we cannot say ,therefore, that it is a weakener. Am i correct here? Now we do not know that what is "Some" here. It may be 100 or 1 in 100. Since we have to assume some more information to weaken the conclusion, is this the reason why it is not directly impacting the conclusion?

(D) The new regulation requires no change in the chemical formulation of fuel for cars in Jalica.

-This is an assumption that could work for assumption question. It has no bearing on the conclusion.

(E) Jalicans who get cars that are more fuel-efficient tend to do more driving than before.

I struggled with this choice because of one reason only. The prompt is "The more fuel-efficient a car, the less pollution it produces per mile driven" . Since it is about pollution per mile driven, even though they drove more than before , on average will it make any impact when considering pollution per mile driven.

Now I know OA is E . So i tried to think in new way. So may be i got this E wrong because i assumed that Conclusion is about "Pollution per mile driven" whereas in the passage it is stated as " Annual pollution " which looks like total pollution. Now for sure, total pollution will increase. Is this why my reasoning was wrong because i assumed "pollution per mile driven" in conclusion?

Had Conclusion been " Annual pollution per mile driven is likely to decrease" , would E be the incorrect choice for that matter?

Thanks

For (C), the problem is not "some". We are talking about "some pollution control devices that are mandated". It means that these devices are required to be put in all the cars. So say, every car needs to have 10 devices that somehow reduce pollution. Of these, 4 are such that they lead to lower fuel efficiency. The option says that without these 4 devices, the car would see higher fuel efficiency.
This is irrelevant. The old as well as the new cars need to have these devices. How they impact fuel efficiency is none of our concern. We know that the new cars have better fuel efficiency than old cars. How else can we improve fuel efficiency, we don't care in this argument.

For (E), think about what you mean by "annual pollution per mile".
Annual pollution is the pollution in the year. But you are talking about per mile. So how does that work out?
We could talk about average pollution per mile in the year which would be the average of all "pollution per mile" in the year.
But "annual pollution" just means amount of pollution in the year.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.