Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes

I was confused between C & D. However, finally went through C as after carefully reading option D, I realised that the word "only" is making it more particular and not the right answer.

(A) The cost of pollution from driving should not be reflected in the price of gasoline unless the amount of pollution produced would be reduced as a result- This is extreme and I guess out of scope as well.

(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes- We can't guarantee and anyway it's not about creating awareness by increase price. Deduction is- More price- less consumption of fuel.

(E)Pollution from gasoline burned by cars will be reduced only if consumers give more consideration to the cost of that pollution when deciding bow much to drive.- for me it's OOS

For a moment I thought I was having a nightmare.
No, it's not real.
I have already taken the LSAT. And graduated from law school. Whew.

Oh, my. adkikani , this kind of question gets whole books written about it. LR questions are 50 percent of the LSAT. 50 of 100 questions are LR.



Some people think it is good to practice with LSAT logical reasoning questions because the number of official CR questions available is limited,
and because LSAT questions are harder.

Here is one set of LSAT logic questions posted on GMAT club with permission from Aristotle.
One Magoosh expert described LSAT logical reasoning questions as "like the GMAT on Human Growth Hormone."

Just know that LSAT LR are harder than CR.

This is not correct. Mind you, you have to take everything given in the argument to be true.

Question stem: The environmentalist's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
You are looking for the conclusion from the options.

So basically, this is true: Heavier taxes on gasoline, however, would reflect this cost, and as a result consumers would pollute less. Cost of the problems will affect consumers' decision about how much to drive.

(C) Consumers would purchase less gasoline, on average, if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline.

Then (C) must be correct. The consumers will pollute less and their decision on how much to drive will be affected so if the cost of problems is reflected in price, they will buy less gasoline.

(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes.
This is not necessarily true. Their decisions on how much to drive will be altered because of the higher gas prices but whether their awareness on kinds of env problems will increase or not, we don't know.

Also, I don't understand the logic of "Avoid extreme language unless supported by argument."
- It is a conclusion question. You have to ignore everything that is not supported by the argument. Also, extreme language ("only", "all" etc) doesn't make an option less suitable. The argument could very well warrant it.

Conclusion is - Because of heavier taxes on gasoline, consumers would pollute less. ( Reason - cost of environmental problems is reflected in increased prices for the gasoline)
(A) The cost of pollution from driving should not be reflected in the price of gasoline unless the amount of pollution produced would be reduced as a result. Out of scope.
(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes. Out of scope, conclusion is not getting supported in anyways
(C) Consumers would purchase less gasoline, on average, if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline. Correct.
(D) The only cost considered by most consumers when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline. Hard to negate this. Need help in negating this option.
(E) Pollution from gasoline burned by cars will be reduced only if consumers give more consideration to the cost of that pollution when deciding bow much to drive. Out of scope.

Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes to serious environmental problems. But the cost of these problems is not reflected in gasoline prices, and hence usually does not affect consumers' decisions about how much to drive. Heavier taxes on gasoline, however, would reflect this cost, and as a result consumers would pollute less.

The environmentalist's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) The cost of pollution from driving should not be reflected in the price of gasoline unless the amount of pollution produced would be reduced as a result. X
This is taking things too far and spins the argument in a different light.
(B) Heavier taxes on gasoline would increase consumers' awareness of the kinds of environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes.
This one is tricky. The key word to hone in on here is 'kinds'. The COST of the environmental problems is not reflected in gasoline prices, but this DOES NOT mean that heavier taxes would increase awareness of the KINDS of problems associated with pollution
(C) Consumers would purchase less gasoline, on average, if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline. CORRECT
(D) The only cost considered by most consumers when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline. X
We don't know what other costs they might be considering.
(E) Pollution from gasoline burned by cars will be reduced only if consumers give more consideration to the cost of that pollution when deciding bow much to drive. X
Again...this takes things too far...there are other means by which pollution can be reduced.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.