Hi Chiranjeev,
I am confused with an explanation provided in OG13 for an option.
Wood smoke contains dangerous toxins that cause changes in human cells. Because wood smoke presents such
a high health risk, legislation is needed to regulate the use of open-air fires and wood-burning stoves.
Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument above?
(A) The amount of dangerous toxins contained inwood smoke is much less than the amount contained in an
equal volume of automobile exhaust.
I took this option as Out of Scope as we are only focused on the toxins caused by burning wood and comparing toxins with automobile exhaust makes
the option OFS.
But the explaination in OG states that :
If wood smoke were as dangerous as car exhaust, this might support the idea of regulating it just as
exhaust emissions are regulated; but this statement tells us it is less dangerous.
The idea stated that if the smoke was as dangerous, it might support the argument. I am a bit confused here as it seems to be adding extra info
outside the general knowledge (just as exhaust emissions are regulated).
So, can a choice as below be considered correct for the passage above :
(A) The amount of dangerous toxins contained inwood smoke is much more than the amount contained in an
equal volume of automobile exhaust.
Thanks,
Sahil Batra
Let me begin by saying that while OG questions are truly the best in the market, OG explanations are not. You will notice this fact much more in SC than in CR.
In this question, per OG explanation given, the option statement suggested by you should be a valid strengthener. However,
. The reason is that we don't know whether automobile exhaust is regulated or not. This information is not a universal fact which we can take as common knowledge.
So, all in all, you are correct that choice A is OFS and we cannot assume that automobile emissions are regulated.