Legislators in New Victoria are debating a plan to reduce

Question

Legislators in New Victoria are debating a plan to reduce industrial carbon emissions. Some lawmakers favor a simple tax on emissions. Others favor a cap-and-trade policy, which would set a limit on total emissions and allow companies to trade emissions permits. Although cap-and-trade allows policymakers to set the allowable emissions level, in nations where it has been implemented, industry groups have successfully lobbied for additional free permits, leading to higher pollution. Thus, a tax on emissions would be a more effective solution.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the reasoning?

A. Industry groups have powerful lobbies that will likely ensure favorable treatment under any new legislation. 
B. There is no evidence that an increase in the manufacturing capacity of New Victoria has affected the country’s emissions level. 
C. Under current law in New Victoria, industry groups receive a variety of tax credits, some of which pertain to emissions levels. 
D. Following the rise in industrial emissions levels over the last 20 years, New Victoria has become a more prominent target for global environmental activists. 
E. A tax on carbon emissions would have a negative financial effect on more companies in New Victoria than would a cap-and-trade program.

pradeepskunwar · Answer

I will go with A.

Hussain15 · Answer

Can you kindly explain?

Argument is that if the tax burden will be imposed on companies, the carbon emission will be less as companies will try to avoid the tax. Now if the companies are not subject to taxation regarding emission due to the tax credits they have, they will not be affected from the suggestion of new taxes.

I think "C" is fine.

dwivedys · Answer

A makes sense...

dwivedys · Answer

Whats the OA? I think the argument hinges on the ability of industrialists to bend rules to their favor. If they can influence cap and trade - then why cant they influence taxes? make them more benign? A points that out.

Hussain15 · Answer

OA is "A". Thanks for the input.

RGM · Answer

For me A. With C, yes, there are tax credits associated with emissions, but you don't know if the tax credits are associated with keeping emissions low, or otherwise. As such, you can't know what the basis of the tax credits is, and makes this statement inconclusive.

iPinnacle · Answer

A is the correct answer.

The conclusion is based on the argument, as there is lobbying for one of the method, other method should be choosen. A is telling lobbying exists for both methods. So it is weakening .

Legislators in New Victoria are debating a plan to reduce

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

My Rewards