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.

Yeah the CR is using the analogy to support the conclusion.

E is not evident since incentives or loans may NOT necessarily improve the infrastructure.

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

a. On the average, Canadian companies are more energy efficient than those in the United States. -----not relevant
b. Experts believe that energy efficiency could lower the energy use of the United States to the level of 1995. conclusion does not talk about the level of energy use
c. In the past, government incentives have made advances in energy conservation feasible, especially in the auto industry. supports the argument by saying that such a move has helped a particular industry in the past
d. The dependence on foreign oil is a greater problem in the present than global warming. totally irrelevant
e. The market for cleaner technologies is currently relatively small because of the infrastructure requirements.this is a reason why the market is small. we are not concerned with this. however, no support to the conclusion is offered. hence wrong

Hi


Can you please explain me in detail why E is wrong. I understand why C is correct but E seems tempting to choose.

I Interpreted E as: because of the low infrastructure the market is RELATIVELY low --> If this is true then it supports the argument that government should encourage the development by providing incentives (via loans etc)

Please correct me where i am going wrong in the understanding of the question/choices.

[quote="souvik101990"]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. Which of the following, if true, provides the most effective support for the argument?

A. On the average, Canadian companies are more energy efficient than those in the United States. This is off totally..The Argument never said anything about Canadian companies..It only mentioned American companies

B. Experts believe that energy efficiency could lower the energy use of the United States to the level of 1995. This is also off too..Though it is ok to imply that energy efficiency could lower the energy use of the United States,we dont know what the level was in 1995..It might actually be higher or lower than it is today and the argument didn't say anything about the level of energy use in the United States in 1995 anyway

C. In the past, government incentives have made advances in energy conservation feasible, especially in the auto industry.[color=#0000ff]In my opinion,this is the best option. In the past government incentives have made advances in energy conservation feasible,it is safe to also assume that the same government incentives will also help companies become more energy efficient and these efforts could then place the United States at the forefront of an emerging global market for cleaner technologies[/color]

D. The dependence on foreign oil is a greater problem in the present than global warming.I think that the argument gave the same weight to the two pressing issues of the time...Global warming and dependence on precarious supply of oil..So this Option is off too..

E. The market for cleaner technologies is currently relatively small because of the infrastructure requirements.
In my opinion,this is also off..The argument mentioned something about the United States being at the forefront of an emerging global market for cleaner technologies,it didn't say anything about the market for cleaner technologies being relatively small because of infrastructure requirements

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.

--> market is small. So federal govt now can provide support to encourage it. -> only correct choice

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.

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

the last sentence is the main conclusion of the arguement and needs to be strengthened. the gov should help US companies in their movement towards greener technologies by pouring money into US companies or give them an opportunity to keep more money in-house to (assumably) reinvest it into greener technologies. the evidence for that is the increasing number of such good faith corporates. the interim conclusion made from this is that if all such aspiring companies accumulate in US then US will accumulate the cutting edge green knowledge which is a good thing basically and will create more market opportunities. besides that this phenomenon helps to fight global environmental issues. e.g. we can strengthen it by saying that we have not yet accumulated the knowledge and we are just in the beginning of the journey or by reassuring that there is really a GREAT aspiration among many potential companies to grow DEEPLY GREEN or by proving that there is actually a global market for such technologies to justify the gov spending

A. On the average, Canadian companies are more energy efficient than those in the United States. so what? if the average level is low then we have plenty of potential to outperform - good for gov suport. if the level is high then Canucks are already on the forefront - no good for gov support? may be yes may be not

B. Experts believe that energy efficiency could lower the energy use of the United States to the level of 1995. places focus on energy consumption rather on creation of new market opportunities

C. In the past, government incentives have made advances in energy conservation feasible, especially in the auto industry.what was good for the past not necessarily would good for the future - irrelevant here. second we do not need to question the feasibility of the corporate initiatives - we already know they are effective.

D. The dependence on foreign oil is a greater problem in the present than global warming.this premise is a very side secondary commentary and in no way influence the conclusion. it merely reshuffles the environmental issues by their significance

E. The market for cleaner technologies is currently relatively small because of the infrastructure requirements.this proves that the market is really only emerging, so the potential is really huge. the word "relatively" denotes that the author sees greater opportunities for the increase of the market if the infrastructure issue gets solved. regardless of the whether this issue gets resolved US will be already on the forefront of the market with the help of gov. CORRECT

ANSWER E

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!

Yups I feel E too, but how can C be the ans. C is mentioning about auto industry not about cleaner technology. Any luck finding a better explanation?

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 generally agree with any CR source other than GMAT Prep (and apparently LSAT). I think this one is okay though.

Conclusion: The federal government should encourage these (energy conservation) efforts by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks.
Missing info: Why is government intervention important?


(A) On the average, Canadian companies are more energy efficient than those in the United States - Completely Out of Scope (Irrelevant)

(B) Experts believe that energy efficiency could lower the energy use of the United States to the level of 1995. Out of Scope (Irrelevant)

(C) In the past, government incentives have made advances in energy conservation feasible, especially in the auto industry. Fills in the missing link

(D) The dependence on foreign oil is a greater problem in the present than global warming. Out of Scope (Irrelevant)

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


_________________

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.