GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 Oct 2019, 21:29

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2017
Posts: 293
Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2017, 08:37
1
4
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

73% (01:49) correct 27% (01:51) wrong based on 385 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing disproportionately to global air pollution. The requirement in many jurisdictions that automobiles pass emission-control inspections has had the effect of taking many such automobiles out of service in the United States, as they fail inspection and their owners opt to buy newer automobiles. Thus the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.

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

(A) It is impossible to separate the air of one country or jurisdiction from that of others.

(B) When automobiles that are now new become older, they will, because of a design change, cause less air pollution than older automobiles do now.

(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.

(D) The number of jurisdictions in the United States requiring automobiles to pass emission-control inspections is no longer increasing.

(E) Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly.
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3581
Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2018, 07:31
4
generis

My query is regarding choosing E over C.
Quote:
Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing disproportionately to global air pollution. The requirement in many jurisdictions that automobiles pass emission-control inspections has had the effect of taking many such automobiles out of service in the United States, as they fail inspection and their owners opt to buy newer automobiles. Thus the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.
The burden of pollution that such (ie those automobiles which failed inspection tests) older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next 10 years

Why?
Because as per author, a recent jurisdiction has been passed which states:
1. Older automobiles which do not pass emission-control inspections will be discontinued to drive.
2. People will have to opt to buy new vehicles, and new vehicles will not cause as much pollution as old ones.
So I am pre-thinking: What if new vehicles have some maintenance issue that leads
to air pollution.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
. . .
Quote:
(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.

But I am not concerned with: What is happening in US? I discarded this option for this reason.
. . .
Quote:
(E) Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly

Quote:
Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, :
OK, so old vehicles are discontinued from service.
Quote:
air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly

TOTAL = NEW. Exactly what I am looking for. The result of driving new vehicles is that the air pollution has increased.

I'm interested to see that E seems so tempting. Whether people are torn between C and E or just prefer E, the common theme is that E undermines the conclusion.

Not really.

I can see why people may think it does. Option E seems to have the cues that many methods train us to find.

Option E does address the issue of the old vehicles. It does contain the words "pollution" and "increase" and the phrase "U.S. automobiles."

On the other hand, superficially, option E does not mention an increase in global air pollution. That fact alone is not enough to reject E.

E shifts the focus to future cars. That move might be legitimate . . . if only the language were definitive.

Option E's language is not definitive at all. Not even a little bit.

Option E is a conditional statement signaled by the word "if." The language is speculative.

Option E discusses a POSSIBLE condition and a probable result. The modal verbs "could" and "should" are red flags that convey "nothing definite here!"

We have a statement that air pollution
-- COULD still increase . . .
-- IF total vehicle use . . .
-- SHOULD (hypothetically WERE TO) increase "significantly."

I read option E and thought, "Spineless. Wishy-washy. How do we know whether these big IFs will happen? We don't."

That language is too uncertain and cautious to do any harm, never mind to "seriously weaken" the conclusion. IF total vehicle use "should" (were to) increase significantly, pollution "could" also increase.

I sense that option E seems viable because people are failing to notice key words, often modifiers, in the conclusion.

I am glad to see your energy put into rewriting the conclusion. Smart move. Now the task includes noticing every word.

I often pick out nouns and adjectives first, between three and five.

In this case I would pick
-- old U.S. cars
-- pollution
-- global atmosphere

Then I string my choices together (usually in my head, or scribbled quickly with symbols).

My paraphrased conclusion is: Old U.S. cars' pollution of the global atmosphere will decrease in the next decade.

In a CR or LR conclusion, words that may seem extra are not. Every word matters, especially modifiers of any kind such as adjectives.

The importance of the words "U.S." [cars] and "global" [atmosphere] in the conclusion has not been mentioned explicitly, but those two adjectives should jump out clearly now. They are the key to the finding the correct answer.
Quote:
2. People will have to opt to buy new vehicles, and new vehicles will not cause as much pollution as old ones.
This focus led you the wrong way.

The logical link is not between new and old cars. The premises discuss new cars a lot. While premises are important, they also can distract if we do not watch for the modifiers that actually show up in the conclusion.

New cars are not mentioned in the conclusion. (When in doubt, go right back to the conclusion and look at the words.)

The crucial logical link is between "old U.S. cars" and "global pollution," both of which are mentioned in the very first sentence of the prompt and repeated in the conclusion.

When I help people prepare for the LSAT (half of questions are Logical Reasoning, which are like CR on amphetamines), I give them three basic start points:

1) Accept that the author's facts are true, no matter how outrageous, stupid, or irrelevant you think they are. The facts are true. Do not embellish, alter, or argue with them.

2) But go to war with the author's conclusion. If you are short on time, read the conclusion more carefully than anything else. Get fierce and get personal: this conclusion is idiotic and the author is feeding you a load of hooey.

3) Tell the author WHY he or she is spewing nonsense.

Your first instinct should be to attack. (Even in strengthen questions, attack. If you attack, you will find the best supporting answer.)

Intellectual exercises in critical thinking often are supposed to be polite and measured. Not here. Abandon deference.

If we are in attack mode regarding the author's conclusion, we are less likely to be swayed by reasonable-sounding answers that do little or nothing to show that the conclusion is wrong and dumb.

What could we do in this case to explain to the author WHY we are not buying his or her nonsense?

I started by contradicting the conclusion. Old U.S. cars contribute disproportionately to global air pollution. Those cars' contribution to global pollution will NOT decrease if?

If somehow those old cars get back on the road and emit the same amount of pollution.

We therefore want an answer in which the old U.S. cars show up in some other place without emission controls -- in the next county or state or country.

That answer is C. Option (C) demolishes the conclusion.
Quote:
(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.

Big markets exist for old U.S. cars. Those markets do not regulate pollution. Result? The old U.S. cars still drive around, polluting the global atmosphere disproportionately. Nothing changed!

"Dear author: if old U.S. cars simply move, pulled by demand in 'thriving markets' for those cars; and if old U.S. cars then operate in places without pollution controls; then the disproportionate contribution to global atmosphere pollution by old U.S. cars will not decrease. You are full of hooey. The end."

Hope that helps.
_________________
SC Butler has resumed! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date, here.

Instructions for living a life. Pay attention. Be astonished. Tell about it. -- Mary Oliver
##### General Discussion
Current Student
Joined: 09 Sep 2016
Posts: 16
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V27
GMAT 2: 620 Q49 V27
GPA: 3
Re: Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2017, 09:22
Why is option E incorrect? I picked E as I was confused between C and E. Help me get it.

Posted from my mobile device
Current Student
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 90
Location: Netherlands
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V40
Re: Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2017, 14:07
yogesh610 wrote:
Why is option E incorrect? I picked E as I was confused between C and E. Help me get it.

Posted from my mobile device

While E certainly will weaken the argument 'if' the number of new automobiles is much greater, the sentence in which option E is conveyed makes it more of an assumption. While C provides a certain scenario of what is happening. Therefore the answer is C.

Hope this helps!

Sent from my SM-G935F using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Intern
Joined: 16 Jul 2013
Posts: 7
Re: Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2017, 05:10
Question Type: Weaken

Conclusion: Thus the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.

In short we need to prove that Pollution such older automobiles contribute will not be reduced over next decade.

(A) It is impossible to separate the air of one country or jurisdiction from that of others. Out of scope

(B) When automobiles that are now new become older, they will, because of a design change, cause less air pollution than older automobiles do now.
Talks about the pollution that will be caused by new automobiles in future and compares the pollution caused by them to now older automobiles. This does not weaken the argument.

(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.
This option clearly states that if there is thriving market for the used old automobiles in the regions where there are no regulations then these automobiles will continue to contribute to the air pollution and thus the pollution will not be reduced in the next decade. This option clearly weakens our argument.

(D) The number of jurisdictions in the United States requiring automobiles to pass emission-control inspections is no longer increasing. Does not weaken the argument. In fact has no effect on the argument.

(E) Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of
automobiles in use should increase significantly.
This is a good trap answer. IMO, the argument here is only concerned about the pollution caused by older automobiles as mentioned in the premise of the argument. This option says that the air pollution from United States automobiles could increase if the number of automobiles in use increase. If this is true then the air pollution in US is definitely going to increase but this does not weaken the argument because the increased pollution will be attributable to the new or perhaps the existing cars but not to the old cars the argument talked about. We somehow need to prove that the pollution caused by old automobiles will not be reduced or increased over the next decade.So we can eliminate this choice.

Hope it helps
Arunabh
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2017, 22:53
1
vikasp99 wrote:
Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing disproportionately to global air pollution. The requirement in many jurisdictions that automobiles pass emission-control inspections has had the effect of taking many such automobiles out of service in the United States, as they fail inspection and their owners opt to buy newer automobiles. Thus the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.

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

(A) It is impossible to separate the air of one country or jurisdiction from that of others.

(B) When automobiles that are now new become older, they will, because of a design change, cause less air pollution than older automobiles do now.

(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.

(D) The number of jurisdictions in the United States requiring automobiles to pass emission-control inspections is no longer increasing.

(E) Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly.

-Many jurisdictions require cars to pass emissions
-This has caused cars that fail inspection to get off the road while owners buy newer cars
-The burden of pollution of older U.S. cars will be gradually reduced over the next decade

This argument is assuming that the older vehicles, while taken off the road in jurisdictions with such emissions standards, are NOT going elsewhere. The stimulus only said that "many" jurisdictions are requiring these emissions tests - this doesn't tell us much! Perhaps "many" is only 5% of the U.S. while this argument is talking about the entire "burden of pollution" of older U.S. vehicles. With that said, it is important to note that we actually don't care too much about the newer vehicles. Why? Because the conclusion is strictly talking about "older United States automobiles." Therefore, knowing that "newer U.S. automobiles are terrible for the environment and will result in our demise" would actually do us no good for the purposes of this argument.

(A) So? Does this say anything about older U.S. cars? Nope.

(B) This actually might strengthen the argument, if anything, by showing that newer cars will be better for the environment always. However, this still doesn't say anything about older cars and that is what we need.

(C) Yes! If there is a "thriving market" of people waiting to buy these older U.S. cars then we can safely question that the burden of pollution will be reduced. If anything, the burden of pollution would stay roughly the same BECAUSE do not actually seem to be ceasing existence. They are still going to be driven! Thus, the pollution in the global atmosphere should be about the same as it was before.

(D) Tricky! However, this doesn't really do too much. This seems to say that the number of jurisdictions are staying the same. Without making any additional assumptions, this seems to neither strengthen nor weaken the argument. If the same jurisdictions are going to be requiring the test - and no more - then why would we question the conclusion that the older U.S. automobiles will be contributing less pollution to the globe? It seems fairly reasonable. HOWEVER, if this answer choice had actually said that the number of jurisdictions were "sharply decreasing" then you might be onto something here...

(E) This might weaken but the problem is that we would have to make another assumption to make this so. We would have to assume that the "total number of automobiles in use" actually do "increase significantly." This is something we know nothing about so I would be hesitant to pick this answer! We have no idea how many cars will be on the road.
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1366
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2018, 08:32
gmatexam439 generis nightblade354 pikolo2510 ammuseeru Harshgmat GMATNinja

My query is regarding choosing E over C.

Quote:
Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing disproportionately to global air pollution. The requirement in many jurisdictions that automobiles pass emission-control inspections has had the effect of taking many such automobiles out of service in the United States, as they fail inspection and their owners opt to buy newer automobiles. Thus the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.

The burden of pollution that such (ie those automobiles which failed inspection tests) older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next 10 years
Why?
Because as per author, a recent jurisdiction has been passed which states:
1. Older automobiles which do not pass emission-control inspections will be discontinued to drive.
2. People will have to opt to buy new vehicles, and new vehicles will not cause as much pollution as old ones.
So I am pre-thinking: What if new vehicles have some maintenance issue that leads
to air pollution.

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

Quote:
(A) It is impossible to separate the air of one country or jurisdiction from that of others.

Out of scope of argument.

Quote:
(B) When automobiles that are now new become older, they will, because of a design change, cause less air pollution than older automobiles do now.

In a way strengthens the argument. I am looking for : what if new vehicles cause more air pollution
than older ones.

Quote:
(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.

But I am not concerned with: What is happening in US? I discarded this option for this reason.

Quote:
(D) The number of jurisdictions in the United States requiring automobiles to pass emission-control inspections is no longer increasing.

But already the jurisdiction is passed which states new inspection laws. In future, what happens, why do I care?

Quote:
(E) Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly

Quote:
Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, :

OK, so old vehicles are discontinued from service.

Quote:
air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly

TOTAL = NEW. Exactly what I am looking for. The result of driving new vehicles is that the air pollution has increased.
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 508
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
Re: Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2018, 11:53
1

The conclusion is really concerned about the pollution caused by "old vehicles".

Quote:
Thus the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.

But if you read E, it is talking about a situation in which pollution from new vehicles is to be considered. This situation doesn't weaken the conclusion

Whereas, if you read C, it says that the old vehicles will still be used in other regions. This weakens the conclusion as the pollution from such old vehicles will not decrease even if the new regulations are put in place

Hope this helps
_________________
Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2017
Posts: 515
Re: Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2018, 17:24
I was vacillating between C and E as there is subtle difference here. We are talking about pollution caused by older vehicles, not by new vehicles.

So C is winning choice.
Director
Joined: 08 Jun 2013
Posts: 543
Location: France
GMAT 1: 200 Q1 V1
GPA: 3.82
WE: Consulting (Other)
Re: Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2018, 12:30
2
generis wrote:
gmatexam439 generis nightblade354 pikolo2510 ammuseeru Harshgmat GMATNinja

My query is regarding choosing E over C.
Quote:
Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing disproportionately to global air pollution. The requirement in many jurisdictions that automobiles pass emission-control inspections has had the effect of taking many such automobiles out of service in the United States, as they fail inspection and their owners opt to buy newer automobiles. Thus the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.

The burden of pollution that such (ie those automobiles which failed inspection tests) older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next 10 years

Why?
Because as per author, a recent jurisdiction has been passed which states:
1. Older automobiles which do not pass emission-control inspections will be discontinued to drive.
2. People will have to opt to buy new vehicles, and new vehicles will not cause as much pollution as old ones.
So I am pre-thinking: What if new vehicles have some maintenance issue that leads
to air pollution.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
. . .
Quote:
(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.

But I am not concerned with: What is happening in US? I discarded this option for this reason.
. . .
Quote:
(E) Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly

Quote:
Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, :
OK, so old vehicles are discontinued from service.
Quote:
air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly

TOTAL = NEW. Exactly what I am looking for. The result of driving new vehicles is that the air pollution has increased.

I'm interested to see that E seems so tempting. Whether people are torn between C and E or just prefer E, the common theme is that E undermines the conclusion.

Not really.

I can see why people may think it does. Option E seems to have a lot of cues many methods train us to find.

Option E does address the issue of the old vehicles. It does contain the words "pollution" and "increase" and the phrase "U.S. automobiles."

On the other hand, superficially, option E does not mention an increase in global air pollution. That fact alone is not enough to reject E.

E shifts the focus to future cars. That move might be legitimate . . . if only the language were definitive.

Option E's language is not definitive at all. Not even a little bit.

Option E is a conditional statement signaled by the word "if." The language is speculative.

Option E discusses a POSSIBLE condition and a probable result. The modal verbs "could" and "should" are red flags that convey "nothing definite here!"

We have a statement that air pollution
-- COULD still increase . . .
-- IF total vehicle use . . .
-- SHOULD (hypothetically WERE TO) increase "significantly."

I read option E and thought, "Spineless. Wishy-washy. How do we know whether these big IFs will happen? We don't."

That language is too uncertain and cautious to do any harm, never mind to "seriously weaken" the conclusion. "IF" total vehicle "should" (were to) increase significantly, pollution "could" also increase.

I sense that option E seems viable because people are failing to notice key words, often modifiers, in the conclusion.

I am glad to see energy put into rewriting the conclusion. Smart move. Now the task includes noticing every word.

I often pick out nouns and adjectives first, between three and five.

In this case I would pick
-- old U.S. cars
-- pollution
-- global atmosphere

Then I string my choices together (usually in my head, or scribbled quickly with symbols).

My paraphrased conclusion is: Old U.S. cars' pollution of the global atmosphere will decrease in the next decade.

In a CR or LR conclusion, words that may seem extra are not. Every word matters, especially modifiers of any kind such as adjectives.

The importance of "U.S." (cars) and "global" (atmosphere) has not been mentioned explicitly, but those two adjectives should jump out clearly now. They are the key to the finding the correct answer.
Quote:
2. People will have to opt to buy new vehicles, and new vehicles will not cause as much pollution as old ones.
This focus led you the wrong way.

The logical link is not between new and old cars. The premises discuss new cars a lot. While premises are important, they can also distract if we do not watch for the modifiers that actually show up in the conclusion.

New cars are not mentioned in the conclusion. (When in doubt, go right back to the conclusion and look at the words.)

The crucial logical link is between "old U.S. cars" and "global pollution," both of which are mentioned in the very first sentence of the prompt and repeated in the conclusion.

When I help people prepare for the LSAT (half of questions are Logical Reasoning, which are like CR on amphetamines), I give them three basic start points:

1) Accept that the author's facts are true, no matter how outrageous, stupid, or irrelevant you think they are. The facts are true. Do not embellish, alter, or argue with them.

2) But go to war with the author's conclusion. If you are short on time, read the conclusion more carefully than anything else. Get fierce and get personal: this conclusion is idiotic and the author is feeding you a load of hooey.

3) Tell the author WHY he or she is spewing nonsense.

Your first instinct should be to attack. (Even in strengthen questions, attack. If you attack, you will find the best supporting answer.)

Intellectual exercises in critical thinking are often supposed to be polite and measured. Not here. Abandon deference.

If we are in attack mode regarding the author's conclusion, we are less likely to be swayed by reasonable-sounding answers that do little or nothing to show that the conclusion is wrong and dumb.

What could we do in this case to explain to the author WHY we are not buying his or her nonsense?

I started by contradicting the conclusion. Old U.S. cars contribute disproportionately to global air pollution. Those cars' contribution to global pollution will NOT decrease if?

If somehow those old cars get back on the road and emit the same amount of pollution.

We therefore want an answer in which the old U.S. cars show up in some other place without emission controls -- in the next county or state or country.

That answer is C. Option (C) demolishes the conclusion.
Quote:
(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.

Big markets exist for old U.S. cars. Those markets do not regulate pollution. Result? The old U.S. cars still pollute the global atmosphere disproportionately.

"Dear author: if old U.S. cars simply move, pulled by demand in 'thriving markets' for those cars; if old U.S. cars still operate in places without pollution controls; then the disproportionate contribution to global atmosphere pollution by old U.S. cars will not decrease. You are full of hooey. The end."

Hope that helps.

generis Mate Great explanation

Critically Reasoned
_________________
Everything will fall into place…

There is perfect timing for
everything and everyone.
Never doubt, But Work on
improving yourself,
Keep the faith and
It will all make sense.
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3581
Re: Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2018, 07:04
Harshgmat wrote:

generis Mate Great explanation

Critically Reasoned

Harshgmat , thank you for the kind words!
I am glad to know that what sometimes seems like idle chatter actually makes a difference now and then.

I like your spirited generosity and the example you set.
_________________
SC Butler has resumed! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date, here.

Instructions for living a life. Pay attention. Be astonished. Tell about it. -- Mary Oliver
Director
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Posts: 994
Location: India
Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jan 2019, 23:48
Quote:
Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing disproportionately to global air pollution. The requirement in many jurisdictions that automobiles pass emission-control inspections has had the effect of taking many such automobiles out of service in the United States, as they fail inspection and their owners opt to buy newer automobiles. Thus the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.

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

(A) It is impossible to separate the air of one country or jurisdiction from that of others.

(B) When automobiles that are now new become older, they will, because of a design change, cause less air pollution than older automobiles do now.

(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.

(D) The number of jurisdictions in the United States requiring automobiles to pass emission-control inspections is no longer increasing.

(E) Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly.

Conclusion -> the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.
We need to weaken this now->
We need to find another reason why even if a legislation is put on older automobiles, global pollution wont be reduced.

(A) It is impossible to separate the air of one country or jurisdiction from that of others.
Separate the air - Irrelevant

(B) When automobiles that are now new become older, they will, because of a design change, cause less air pollution than older automobiles do now.
We have to talk about older vehicles

(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.
This can give us a reason for why the global pollution is not reduced even after passing the legislation -> Correct

(D) The number of jurisdictions in the United States requiring automobiles to pass emission-control inspections is no longer increasing.
Number of jurisdictions has nothing to do with older automobiles

(E) Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly
Its not telling about the global scenario, it is just talking about US.
_________________
If you notice any discrepancy in my reasoning, please let me know. Lets improve together.

Quote which i can relate to.
Many of life's failures happen with people who do not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.
Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing   [#permalink] 12 Jan 2019, 23:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by