OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The argument claims that federal incentives should be provided to encourage energy efficiency. The argument also notes that companies are already working in this direction and that this trend will ease the environmental and energy pressures that currently trouble the world. Supporting this argument could involve providing evidence of possible success for these efforts toward their goals.

(A) This choice is an irrelevant comparison. That Canadian companies are more efficient has no bearing on efforts in the United States or the role of government incentives.

(B) This choice does not strengthen the claim. Experts' claims are not the same as reality. Furthermore, the choice does not say whether reducing energy use to the 1995 level is a significant decrease, nor does it provide any information to strengthen the link between government incentives and reduced energy use.

(C) CORRECT. This choice provides evidence that government incentives are effective. Thus, this choice confirms an assumption that the conclusion is feasible.

(D) This choice is an irrelevant distinction. It does not matter to the argument’s conclusion if one of these issues is a greater problem than the other in the present.

(E) The passage asserts that the United States should be at the forefront of an emerging market for cleaner technologies; i.e., the market will be significant in the future. The size of the market at present is irrelevant to the argument.
_________________

First lets eliminate the irrelevant options:
A talks of Canadian vc Amercian companies. Why are we consuming that Author or Federal Govt wants to meet Canadian standards? Irrelevant
D compares the two porblems which the question statement highlights- global warming and dependence on foreign oil. however which of the two is more critical is immaterial to the question argument. hence rejected.
We are left with b, c, e
What is the conclusion/ intent of the argument in the question - that the federal govt should provide incentives.
b provides confirmation that energy efficiency will make US as effective as 1995- so what? That doesnt mean Govt should incentivise for achieving this.
E says market for this technology is small currently because of infrastructure requirements: but the question statement says that the market is growing as more and more companies are adopting cleaner tech and govt needs to encourage these efforts: inconsistent. Also, infrastructure at whose end? producers? or customers: not clear.
C highlights the effectiveness of govt incentives in such matters- clearly supporting the recommendation that govt should provide these incentives more and more.

a. On the average, Canadian companies are more energy efficient than those in the United States.
-- nothing mentioned about Canadian companies in stimulus, so, eliminated...

b. Experts believe that energy efficiency could lower the energy use of the United States to the level of 1995.
-- this is not a wrong statement, but no connection to the govt loans or incentives.

c. In the past, government incentives have made advances in energy conservation feasible, especially in the auto industry.
-- and hence the government incentives will help making these new efforts global warming and dependence on foreign oil... so, we need govt loads/incentives in this case too... so, supporting the argument.

d. The dependence on foreign oil is a greater problem in the present than global warming.
-- these two are the aims of our efforts. comparing them will not help the argument.

e. The market for cleaner technologies is currently relatively small because of the infrastructure requirements.
-- no connection as to whey govt has to give loans...

So, IMO, its C

I wass stuck between C and D
In my opinion it is C.
D is rather weakening by say one opinion is greater than other. Only C remains after this

Efforts such as consuming less energy ,will help in fighting energy related issues (from first three lines). therefore govt should encourage such efforts and provide loans etc for them.

We have support the argument, what if Govt. provided loans have not made advances in energy conservation feasible, then argument fails, we cannot be sure of same works in future. Hence C, e.g. from past.

I was torn between C and E but ended up with E. We want to strengthen the argument that the government should support cleaner technologies.

C. In the past, government incentives have made advances in energy conservation feasible, especially in the auto industry.

Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is necessary currently. It suggests it, but maybe the auto industry had something specific that necessitated government support that clean technologies don't? Also, while energy conservation is close to clean technology it is possibly not the same thing.

E. The market for cleaner technologies is currently relatively small because of the infrastructure requirements.

This suggests that the reason the clean technologies is so small is because of infrastructure requirements. Government incentives would eliminate this barrier. Seems correct to me!

As explained by Tim (MGMAT Instructor)

The question is asking for most effective support. if i assert that studying will help Bob improve on the GMAT, it is far more useful for me to point out that studying has helped Bob in the past than to point out that Bob is currently terrible at the GMAT.

Totally convinced by above-mentioned example

URL- https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 15704.html

Hence C.

Regards,
Prakhar
_________________

The source of this question is MGMAT, not GMAT Prep. I think the question is more likely flawed than not. As advocated by Atomic Gmat here on the forum the second closest in quality to GMAC CR official material is the LSAT LR. And having taken about 50 LR questions from LSAT prep tests I have to admit that. Nothing stands closer!

I would say more: the Vertias and MGMAT stretched CR questions do more harm than good actually to preparation and building reasoning skills when you have to question allegedly correct answers. LSAT LR questions are just perfect in their refined reasoning as are GMAC CR.

i understand option C, giving E a thought; because the market for cleaner tech is currently small- isn't this providing support to give incentives?

Hi mallya12.

Key to correctly answering CR questions is reading the passages and answer choices COMPLETELY, considering EVERY WORD.

Let's look at (E), and make sure that we read ALL of what it says.

(E) The market for cleaner technologies is currently relatively small because of the infrastructure requirements.

The end of (E) says "because of the infrastructure requirements."

What (E) says therefore indicates that, regardless of whether companies can AFFORD the technologies, they may have difficulty EMPLOYING them, because the use of these technologies is constrained by the current infrastructure.

Thus, (E) is a trap answer, one that may initially seem to be a reason to provide incentives but that turns out to be a reason why providing incentives may not make sense, as even with incentives companies may not use cleaner technologies.

In fact, (E) supports a conclusion different from that of the argument in the passage, the conclusion that the government should somehow support the creation of infrastructure needed for the use of cleaner technologies.
_________________

More and more companies have begun to consume less energy by making themselves more efficient. Over time, these efforts could place the United States at the forefront of an emerging global market for cleaner technologies. Such efforts are also essential to tackling the two big energy-related issues of the age: global warming and the dependence on precarious supplies of oil. The federal government should encourage these efforts by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks.

Conclusion:
The federal government should encourage the efforts of companies which consume less energy by making themselves more efficient by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks.
So, we should strengthen the point that these incentives will encourage the companies to consume less energy.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most effective support for the argument?


This option is in no way addressing the fact whether the Government incentives will encourage the companies to be more energy efficient.


Once again, this fact is not addressing the fact whether the Government incentives will encourage the companies to be more energy efficient.


This option is saying that in the past, government incentives encouraged auto industry to make advances in energy conservation. So, this gives us hopes that if the incentives worked in one instance, they might work again.


Out of scope. No mention of incentives.


Once again, Out of scope. No mention of incentives.

Souvik GMATNinja daagh
More and more companies have begun to consume less energy by making themselves more efficient. Over time, these efforts could place the United States at the forefront of an emerging global market for cleaner technologies. Such efforts are also essential to tackling the two big energy-related issues of the age: global warming and the dependence on precarious supplies of oil. The federal government should encourage these efforts by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks.

Conclusion:
there are 2 claims -
1. Over time, these efforts could place the United States at the forefront of an emerging global market for cleaner technologies.
2. The federal government should encourage the efforts of companies which consume less energy by making themselves more efficient by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks.
SO looking at these 2 claims . 2nd one acts like a supporting details for the first.. so isnt 1st claim the conclusion? thats the reason why i chose A as answer. please guide me

More and more companies have begun to consume less energy by making themselves more efficient. Over time, these efforts could place the United States at the forefront of an emerging global market for cleaner technologies. Such efforts are also essential to tackling the two big energy-related issues of the age: global warming and the dependence on precarious supplies of oil. The federal government should encourage these efforts by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks.

Conclusion:
there are 2 claims -
1. Over time, these efforts could place the United States at the forefront of an emerging global market for cleaner technologies.
2. The federal government should encourage the efforts of companies which consume less energy by making themselves more efficient by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks.
SO looking at these 2 claims . 2nd one acts like a supporting details for the first.. so isnt 1st claim the conclusion? thats the reason why i chose A as answer. please guide me

CONCLUSION - Fed should encourage the efforts ( companies becoming efficient by consuming less energy) by incentives or loans or tax credit

GIVEN -
1) Efforts place US at the forefront of emerging global markets for clean technologies
2) Efforts are essential to tackle global warming and dependence on oil

STRENGTHNER - What new information increases the belief in the conclusion?

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS -

A) Canadian companies do not affect the conclusion
B) Unrelated to conclusion
C) CORRECT
D) Irrelevant to conclusion
E) Size of the market of clean technologies not related to conclusion