Burning fossil fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas - causes pollution.

Burning fossil fuels causes pollution.
Env manager has proposed replacing diesel vehicle with electric or solar.
Management decided electric because they are cheaper (though hassle because craving points will need to be installed)

We need to undermine the decision of the management - decision of the management is aimed at reducing pollution with low associated cost.
We need to show why this goal is not being met with the decision taken (of replacing with electric vehicles)

A. Solar powered vehicles do not cause more pollution than battery powered vehicles.

This doesn't show why electric vehicles are not good enough to reduce pollution.

B. The chemical processes in the plant causes much higher pollution than that the diesel-oil driven vehicles produce.

Irrelevant. If there are some things that the plant cannot change, that doesn't mean it shouldn't change those that it can. Say 100 units of pollution is caused daily by the plant - 80 by chemical processes and 20 by vehicles. Because they cannot reduce the 80, doesn't mean they shouldn't cut down the 20.

C. The vehicles that go inside the chemical plant need to be fitted with costly spark-proof safety devices.

Doesn't give the difference between electric and solar. Does this make electric vehicles more expensive than solar? Do solar vehicles not need spark proof devices? We don't know.

D. A coal-fired power plant supplies electricity to the chemical plant.

This tells us that electric vehicles will indirectly still cause pollution because the power plant uses the fossil fuel - coal - to provide electricity. SO use of electric vehicle will just mean use of more electricity and hence burning of more coal. So in a way, electric vehicles also cause fossil fuel pollution. So the management's plan is flawed.

E. Other plants in the vicinity of the chemical plant will continue to use diesel-oil driven vehicles.

Irrelevant, just like (B). If all plants cause 1000 units of pollution daily and other 900 would be maintained as it is, doesn't mean this plant should not do what it can to reduce pollution. Overall pollution will go down even if only one plant takes steps.

Answer (D)

Which of the following statements most seriously undermines the decision of the management?

A. Solar powered vehicles do not cause more pollution than battery powered vehicles. This could be an assumption but not undermines the argument
B. The chemical processes in the plant causes much higher pollution than that the diesel-oil driven vehicles produce. Replacing diesel- oil driven vehicles with solar battery will reduce a little pollution at least (Nett Pollution reduction). This can not be a weakener.
C. The vehicles that go inside the chemical plant need to be fitted with costly spark-proof safety devices. cost is out of scope
D. A coal-fired power plant supplies electricity to the chemical plant. If coal fired plant supplies the electricity then achieving goal might not be possible. It is a weakener.
E. Other plants in the vicinity of the chemical plant will continue to use diesel-oil driven vehicles. We are concerned about 'a plant' and not other plants in vicinity

Hope I have opted a right option
_________________

Why not A?? If the Solar Panelled vehicles are not more pollution expensive than the Battery Powered then, and Battery Powered are more costlier than the Solar Powered, the decision of the management is undermined!
_________________

Burning fossil fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas - causes pollution. The environment manager of a chemical plant proposes replacement of all diesel-oil driven vehicles that run inside the plant with either rechargeable electric battery powered vehicles or solar powered vehicles. The management decided to buy battery powered vehicles because of their lower investment cost despite the requirement of installation of electric battery charging points at various locations in the plant.

Which of the following statements most seriously undermines the decision of the management?

option D can never weaken the argument.

Look at the part of the argument indicated below. It tells about current pollution trouble in a chemical plant.

"Burning fossil fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas - causes pollution. The environment manager of a chemical plant proposes replacement of all diesel-oil driven vehicles that run inside the plant.................... "

with above paragraphs, argument assumes that pollution is due to the diesel oil driven vehicles.

You consider plant X, a coal based power plant supplies electricity to Plant Y, a chemical company. The pollution problem resides in the chemical factory not in power plant.

Only B can weaken this argument.

If you are answering B as an answer then probably you are not understanding the ARGUMENT
the ARGUMENT is about change over change over from FOSSIL FUELS to ELECTRIC MODE ----->the basis of the argument is stating that FOSSIL FUELS causes pollution --->ONLY D damages the argument !! . WE ARE NOT CONCERNED about other mode of POLLUTIONS as is B DOING

May be , you can correct me.

The argument clearly assumes that pollution is due to diesel oil vehicles running in the plant. so, the manager recommends to use battery mode vehicles to avoid pollution. The argument is not concerned with what is happening in coal plant. the option D indicates that coal plant is part of chemical plant, and it uses fuels to produce electricity. To my understanding, the argument is not talking about changing the mode of operation of power plant.

The ARGUMENT is talking about : The environment manager of a chemical plant proposes replacement of all diesel-oil driven vehicles that run inside the plant with either rechargeable electric battery powered vehicles or solar powered vehicles-----> IN THIS CR we are limiting our discussion only FOR THIS CHANGE OVER ----> WE ARE NOT talking about ANY OTHER mode of pollution . chemical plant MIGHT be causing pollution . but the question that u need to ask is : are we(or more correctly the MANAGER) really CONCERNED about chemical pollution in THIS CR? the answer is NO. please NOTE that WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT OVERALL POLLUTION !!

B is a GENERAL statement that might have been the answer HAD we been talking about OVERALL pollution . but in THIS CR we have to UNDERMINE the decision of manager ---->ask your self why in FIRST PLACE is he making this decision? he is DOING SO because he is believing that COAL BURNING CAUSES POLLUTION ----->what does he recommend? ---->he recommends a change over from COAL TO ELECTRIC ----> what is he ASSUMING ? ---->ELECTRICITY production DOES NOT require COAL !! ----->that is a BIG MISTAKE he is committing !! in fact this CR is VERY TRUE in todays REAL LIFE situation as well !

yes. we are not talking about the other mode of pollution. But the whole argument is based on pollution arising from diesel-oil driven vehicles that run inside the plant and the recommendation is further based on this fact. So, go for different vehicle that runs on other mode. So, the manager recommends that plant go for battery powered vehicles.

You are true is one sentence "IN THIS CR we are limiting our discussion only FOR THIS CHANGE OVER ". But the foundation of this change-over is pollution from diesel powered vehicles.

To weaken the entire argument, we have to look for scenario that the recommendation doesn't work. what if pollution is arising from other source, then the entire exercise will be futile.
Use of battery mode vehicles won't solve the problem.

so what if battery powered are more costlier? the proposal is to fight pollution. it does not say anything about the cost implication. the energy needs are going to remain the same whether battery, solar or fossil fuel powered. and this is where option (D) comes in. whether we use battery powered vehicles or fossil fuel based vehicles, the total energy is still being served by a fossil fuel - coal. therefore, it would not make any difference to the pollution level.

AGAIN you have deviated !! The bold portion in your TEXT is compelling you again and again to NOT THINK in right direction !! ----> ask your self : are we talking about pollution from ANY OTHER source? the MANAGER is CONCERNED ONLY with the pollution of CARS and vehicles.

Because, it is a part of argument. Pollution from chemical plant itself is new information and within the scope of argument. But I am not at all convinced with OA. Ending the discussion from my side.......

Thanks,

Burning fossil fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas - causes pollution. So, the environment manager plans to reduce pollution by replacing fossil fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas to rechargeable electric battery powered vehicles.
I felt option d as out of the scope . Does this affect the argument? Even if there is a supply of electricity from coal fired power plant that causes pollution, the manager???s intend is to reduce pollution. So, yes by replacing fossil fuels with rechargeable cars, even a minor or a greater proportion of environmental pollution can be put into effect.

hi Divyadisha,
Burning fossil fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas - causes pollution. So, the environment manager plans to reduce pollution by replacing fossil fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas to rechargeable electric battery powered vehicles.
I felt option d as out of the scope . Does this affect the argument? Even if there is a supply of electricity from coal fired power plant that causes pollution, the manager’s intend is to reduce pollution. So, yes by replacing fossil fuels with rechargeable cars, even a minor or a greater proportion of environmental pollution can be put into effect. Can u help me to understand?

Burning fossil fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas - causes pollution. The environment manager of a chemical plant proposes replacement of all diesel-oil driven vehicles that run inside the plant with either rechargeable electric battery powered vehicles or solar powered vehicles. The management decided to buy battery powered vehicles because of their lower investment cost despite the requirement of installation of electric battery charging points at various locations in the plant.

Which of the following statements most seriously undermines the decision of the management?

A. Solar powered vehicles do not cause more pollution than battery powered vehicles. -Out of scope
B. The chemical processes in the plant causes much higher pollution than that the diesel-oil driven vehicles produce. -Atleast the change will help reduce the pollution
C. The vehicles that go inside the chemical plant need to be fitted with costly spark-proof safety devices. -Out of scope
D. A coal-fired power plant supplies electricity to the chemical plant. -Correct. The electricity for charging batteries will come from another fossil fuel.
E. Other plants in the vicinity of the chemical plant will continue to use diesel-oil driven vehicles. -Out of scope

Hi,
can you kindly explain option D. I felt option d looks out of the scope . Does this affect the argument? Even if there is a supply of electricity from coal fired power plant that causes pollution, the manager???s intend is to reduce pollution. So, yes by replacing fossil fuels with rechargeable cars, even a minor or a greater proportion of environmental pollution can be put into effect. As you mentioned that the electricity for charging batteries will come from another fossil fuel. How can we know that the fossil fuel comes from manager's plant?

Question is "which of the following most undermine the decision of the management - and decision of the management is to replace all diesel driven vehicles that run inside the plants with battery or solar powered vehicles - Now we need to find the option, which weakens this decision.

Option C says replacement will cause huge cost to the company - A valid and good point to weaken the decision. - Most CORRECT among all.

Option D says this chemical plant is also having a coal fired power plant - causing the pollution - agreed it causes the pollution and relates with the fact given in the argument but no-ways it can weaken the decision of the of the management - it is just OUT OF SCOPE.

I think the answer should be C as the management's decision is certainly based on cost.

Hi sunny91,

The crux of the argument is "control over pollution by using alternative source of energy": batteries or solar power.
Now, if you look at the option D, it states that coal will be used to supply electricity to the chemical plant. Now our main motive is to replace the fossil fuels with alternative mode of energy. Thus, option D shows that coal will be still in use by the factory.

Option C can't be correct because its just stated that the vehicles will be fitted with "costly" items. Now a thing that might be costly to me might not seem costly to you. The author should have specified a specific valid comparison. Had the option stated that the cars will be fitted with items costlier than the items required for setting up solar power generator, or something in the lines of the previously mentioned line, the option would have a been a strong weakener.

Remember that when you are trying to compare 2 things, a correct answer choice will cover both the choices.

Hope that helps

Hello GMATNinja
So this is the conclusion: The management decided to buy battery powered vehicles because of their lower investment cost despite the requirement of installation of electric battery charging points at various locations in the plant.
Now it is implicit that the decision is taken to reduce the pollution though the stem does not mention this correctly.

OA is D which is fine. But if the right answer choice just has to prove pollution will still occur then I guess B,D and E equally do the job for proving that.

Please help understand on what basis D is the strongest choice. Thank you!