Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 04:52 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 04:52
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
505-555 Level|   Logical Flaw|   Weaken|                              
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,844
Own Kudos:
8,945
 [1]
Given Kudos: 225
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,844
Kudos: 8,945
 [1]
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer Updated on: 20 Jul 2021, 07:09
Originally posted by CrackverbalGMAT on 02 Jun 2021, 05:06.
Last edited by CrackverbalGMAT on 20 Jul 2021, 07:09, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Let’s look at the politician’s argument-

Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids.
Fuel produces air pollution, which contributes to a number of environmental problems.
Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel-efficient, and they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if we make them aware of that fact.

Conclusion/opinion
Therefore, we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting the advantage (fuel efficiency) of hybrid cars.


We have to find the vulnerability/ flaw in the politician’s argument that we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars.

(A) People with more fuel-efficient cars typically drive more than do those with less fuel-efficient cars.
If people with more fuel-efficient cars typically drive more than do those with less fuel-efficient cars, it will still add to the total pollution. Hence the conclusion that we will be able to reduce pollution by driving hybrid cars will be weakened. Hence, A points out a vulnerability in the politician’s argument. Correct.

(B) Not all air pollution originates from automobiles.
The argument talks about the pollution caused by automobiles. Eliminate.

(C) Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
It doesn’t point out a flaw in the argument. Eliminate.

(D) Fuel-efficient alternatives to hybrid cars will likely become available in the future.
We are not worried about what may happen in the future. Eliminate.

(E) The future cost of gasoline and other fuel cannot be predicted with absolute precision or certainty.
Cost is out of scope. The conclusion says by using fuel-efficient hybrid cars, we will be able to reduce air pollution. Eliminate.

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME
User avatar
adityaganjoo
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jan 2021
Last visit: 04 Oct 2022
Posts: 148
Own Kudos:
32
Given Kudos: 154
Posts: 148
Kudos: 32
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 02 Jun 2021, 07:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
adityaganjoo
notwithstanding
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids. And fuel produces air pollution, which contributes to a number of environmental problems. Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel efficient, and they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if we make them aware of that fact. Therefore, we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars.

Which of the following, if true, would most indicate a vulnerability of the politician's argument?

(A) People with more fuel-efficient cars typically drive more than do those with less fuel-efficient cars.
(B) Not all air pollution originates from automobiles.
(C) Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
(D) Fuel-efficient alternatives to hybrid cars will likely become available in the future.
(E) The future cost of gasoline and other fuel cannot be predicted with absolute precision or certainty.

ID - CR13127

sayantanc2k VeritasKarishma No doubt that Option A is the most suitable one here. But do you think the word "significantly" is necessary here? As in: People with more fuel-efficient cars typically drive significantly more than do those with less fuel-efficient cars.
Otherwise, there is a chance that the fuel saved due to efficiency of hybrid cars still overcompensates the extra distance travelled

We need to make do with what we are given. Also, we need to indicate a vulnerability, not break the conclusion. So as long as we can cast doubt on the conclusion with our option, we should be fine.
Even if we do use the word "significantly" in option (A), there is a chance that less fuel trumps over more mileage.
Show more

VeritasKarishma sure! But if there were a more convincing option, we could apply this logic, right?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,989
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,989
 [1]
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 02 Jun 2021, 21:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adityaganjoo

VeritasKarishma sure! But if there were a more convincing option, we could apply this logic, right?
Show more

adityaganjoo - In almost all official CR questions (there have been 1 or 2 exceptions in the latest OG but that's very little data), I am convinced that 1 option is correct and the other 4 are wrong (not less correct). Hence, any "if then" situations about "what is better if this were like that" don't have much value.
CR questions are not based on "more correct" vs "less correct" or "supports more" vs "supports less" etc. They are about "1 correct and other 4 incorrect".
User avatar
Jainam24
User avatar
Joined: 30 Dec 2020
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 100
Own Kudos:
58
Given Kudos: 332
Status:Enjoy the journey, love the process
Location: India
Posts: 100
Kudos: 58
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 09 Jul 2021, 10:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In addition to the wonderful answers before, I had an approach albeit a unique or more honestly weird of how I went about reaching to the correct option. In addition to POE, there was another reason why I chose A.
Reason: Analogy
Shower vs Bucket water for bath. Shower can be considered equivalent to hybrid cars and bucket water to fuel inefficient cars.
It is said that shower consumes less water than bucket water but people often bathe longer in shower
I applied this as instantly post reading A I could think of this.

VeritasKarishma mikemcgarry AndrewN carcass chetan2u egmat CrackVerbal I'm curious to know:
I) Is this an effective and a repetable approach to apply in CR Questions in general?
II)If yes, what are a few limitations of this that I should take care of?
III) Can this be a default strategy that I should apply? The moment I see a situation going on in a company,stakeholder if I can relate with a real world scenario shall I relate it with it?
Looking forward to your responses. Many thanks
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [2]
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 09 Jul 2021, 11:36
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Jainam24
In addition to the wonderful answers before, I had an approach albeit a unique or more honestly weird of how I went about reaching to the correct option. In addition to POE, there was another reason why I chose A.
Reason: Analogy
Shower vs Bucket water for bath. Shower can be considered equivalent to hybrid cars and bucket water to fuel inefficient cars.
It is said that shower consumes less water than bucket water but people often bathe longer in shower
I applied this as instantly post reading A I could think of this.

VeritasKarishma mikemcgarry AndrewN carcass chetan2u egmat CrackVerbal I'm curious to know:
I) Is this an effective and a repetable approach to apply in CR Questions in general?
II)If yes, what are a few limitations of this that I should take care of?
III) Can this be a default strategy that I should apply? The moment I see a situation going on in a company,stakeholder if I can relate with a real world scenario shall I relate it with it?
Looking forward to your responses. Many thanks
Show more
Hello, Jainam24. I see nothing wrong with making passages and answer choices more relatable, as long as you do not lose sight of the exact phrasing used in the passage, question, and answer choices themselves. As much as possible, you want to be able to follow the linear logic of the passage so that you can answer the question accordingly. Here, we are looking for a vulnerability or weakness in the argument, so we need to know just what that argument says. Luckily, we find a common transition that is used to introduce an argument (or conclusion): therefore. All we have to do is select an answer that would go against the notion that we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars (my emphases). Choice (A) fits the linear logic because it a) discusses the cars in question and b) presents them in a not-so-positive light, regarding air pollution emitted by cars, thereby weakening the argument.

So, to answer you, feel free to engage with questions in whichever way seems to work, but do not get creative to the point that you begin to chase associations. (Answer choice (B), for example, covers air pollution, but goes off track, outside the bounds of the argument, by invoking other contributors besides cars.) On more difficult questions especially, I find it useful personally to keep my thought process as close to what is on the screen as I can.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask, and good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
User avatar
chetan2u
User avatar
GMAT Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 11,238
Own Kudos:
43,702
 [1]
Given Kudos: 335
Status:Math and DI Expert
Location: India
Concentration: Human Resources, General Management
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81
Products:
My Reviews
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81
Posts: 11,238
Kudos: 43,702
 [1]
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 09 Jul 2021, 20:57
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Jainam24
In addition to the wonderful answers before, I had an approach albeit a unique or more honestly weird of how I went about reaching to the correct option. In addition to POE, there was another reason why I chose A.
Reason: Analogy
Shower vs Bucket water for bath. Shower can be considered equivalent to hybrid cars and bucket water to fuel inefficient cars.
It is said that shower consumes less water than bucket water but people often bathe longer in shower
I applied this as instantly post reading A I could think of this.

VeritasKarishma mikemcgarry AndrewN carcass chetan2u egmat CrackVerbal I'm curious to know:
I) Is this an effective and a repetable approach to apply in CR Questions in general?
II)If yes, what are a few limitations of this that I should take care of?
III) Can this be a default strategy that I should apply? The moment I see a situation going on in a company,stakeholder if I can relate with a real world scenario shall I relate it with it?
Looking forward to your responses. Many thanks
Show more

Hi,

Of course, anything that helps you in answering a question is recommended.

However, a point on creating an analogy.
You can correctly relate a situation to the reasoning in para only when you have understood the flow/ reasoning of the argument and when you have been able to analyse the para properly.
So, given that I have done my bit on the para, I would not want to create an analogy unless it comes to me immediately.

I would not want to make that as a general approach as it can only add some errors to your thought process that has already programmed itself to the given reasoning.
Although during preparation, it could help you in questions related to analogy.

So, I would advice that you could try to do a few to sharpen your critical thinking/reasoning but maybe avoid using it as an approach. You may waste some precious time in creating analogy and realising in the end that it does not meet your requirement.
User avatar
chiplesschap
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jun 2023
Last visit: 25 Nov 2024
Posts: 50
Own Kudos:
21
 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Posts: 50
Kudos: 21
 [1]
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 05 Jan 2024, 00:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ChiranjeevSingh
Understanding the Passage

Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids. - HC (Hybrid cars) << NHC (Nonhybrid cars) – in terms of FUEL/KM

And fuel produces air pollution, which contributes to a number of environmental problems. - Fuel -> Air pollution -> Environmental problems
Relating this statement to the previous one, the indication is that hybrid cars lead to less pollution and less environmental damage than nonhybrid cars.

Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel-efficient, - This statement presents an economic advantage of hybrid cars (which are more fuel-efficient, as given in the first statement).

and they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if we make them aware of that fact.- Motorists will be encouraged to use hybrid cars if they get to know that hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids. (Please note that what “that fact” refers to is not very clear. “that fact” could refer to the fact that hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids or that Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel-efficient. I’ve gone with the former reference.)

Therefore, we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars.- “Therefore” indicates that a conclusion is being presented here. The author concludes that we can reduce pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting the above economic advantage of hybrid cars. Please note that “this advantage” refers to the economic advantage of hybrid cars.

The Gist

The author concludes that we can reduce pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting the fact that people can save money by driving hybrid cars.
How will highlighting this fact help reduce pollution emitted by cars?
Pollution will reduce since hybrid cars use less fuel per km and thus probably produce less pollution per km.

The Gaps

There are several gaps in the argument:

1. Even though hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per km, what if they produce significantly more pollution per unit of fuel used? In such a case, even with less fuel, they may end up producing the same amount of pollution.
2. What if people who would not have otherwise bought cars start buying cars after hearing the economic advantage of hybrid cars? That might lead to more pollution than currently.
3. What if people who buy hybrid cars drive more kilometers than who buy nonhybrid cars? In such a case, even with less fuel per km, hybrid cars may end up consuming more fuel because they are driven for more kilometers. (Option A is around this gap)
4. What if nobody buys hybrid cars even after hearing about this lower price per kilometer advantage? Probably, hybrid cars are much more expensive
than nonhybrid cars, and this increased expense overshadows the benefits of lower fuel costs.
There might be other gaps also. Can you spot any other gaps?

Let’s see whether the following statement is also a potential gap:

The production of hybrid cars produces much more pollution than the production of nonhybrid cars.

Do you think the above statement highlights a gap in the argument?

No. This statement is not a gap in the argument.

Why?

Because the conclusion talks about “the total amount of pollution emitted by cars”.

The conclusion is not impacted by the pollution emitted in the production of cars. Can you see that?

Option Evaluation

(A)People with more fuel-efficient cars typically drive more than do those with less fuel-efficient cars.
 Correct.- This option is around the third gap that we identified. If people with more fuel-efficient cars drive more, then highlighting the economic advantage of hybrid cars or selling more hybrid cars may not bring down the pollution levels. Even with less pollution per km, if hybrid cars are driven more, they may lead to overall more pollution.
Is it guaranteed that hybrid cars will lead to more pollution?
No. And we’re not even looking for a guarantee. The correct option needs to just “indicate” a vulnerability in the argument.

(B)Not all air pollution originates from automobiles.
 Incorrect. -This option has ZERO impact on the argument. The conclusion is about reducing “the total amount of pollution emitted by cars.” Let’s say we change the option to below:
Only a very small proportion of the air pollution originates from automobiles.
The above statement still has ZERO impact on the argument since we’re concerned with…you know…reducing “the total amount of pollution emitted by cars”. Now, whether this amount is a small proportion of the total air pollution or it is a big proportion has NO impact on the argument.

(C)Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
 Incorrect.- This option has ZERO impact on the argument.
Whether hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity or not has no impact on whether increasing their popularity will bring down the pollution or not.

(D)Fuel-efficient alternatives to hybrid cars will likely become available in the future.
 Incorrect.- This option has ZERO impact on the argument.
Whether other alternatives will become available in the future or not has no impact on whether highlighting the advantage of these cars will bring down the pollution or not.

(E)The future cost of gasoline and other fuel cannot be predicted with absolute precision or certainty.
 Incorrect.- This option has ZERO impact on the argument.
Our ability to predict the price of fuel has NO impact on the argument. Note that this option is not saying that the cost of gasoline might decline or increase; it’s just talking about our ability to predict the prices.
Let’s say the option were:
The future cost of gasoline and other fuel will be lower than their current cost.
This statement has a slightly negative impact on the argument since if the future costs are lower, then people may not have much incentive to buy hybrid cars just for their lower fuel per km advantage.
Show more

I couldn't eliminate E as easily as some others.

Prediction uncertainty : a) Gasoline price goes up -> People switch to Hybrid
b) Gasoline price goes down - People wouldn't switch to Hybrid

Since it is possible prices *can reduce* (however low it may be), this choice does make politicians argument vulnerable. In a world with no option A, E would have been the correct answer, no?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,989
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,989
 [1]
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 05 Jan 2024, 05:35
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
chiplesschap

I couldn't eliminate E as easily as some others.

Prediction uncertainty : a) Gasoline price goes up -> People switch to Hybrid
b) Gasoline price goes down - People wouldn't switch to Hybrid

Since it is possible prices *can reduce* (however low it may be), this choice does make politicians argument vulnerable. In a world with no option A, E would have been the correct answer, no?

Posted from my mobile device
Show more

Here is the point - we have to weaken the conclusion of the argument.

What is the conclusion? We can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars.

We need to worry about whether we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars by highlighting this advantage.

We are given that motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel efficient, and they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if we make them aware of that fact. So this is something we take to be true and not worry whether people will switch or not. Our point is whether overall pollution will reduce or not.

Only option (A) addresses this point and hence it is the answer. Option (E) is irrelevant.

Check this video on how to handle strengthen/weaken questions: https://youtu.be/Q5SG0ZZcHKA
User avatar
KONGPING
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jun 2023
Last visit: 08 Jul 2024
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 39
Posts: 14
Kudos: 7
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 24 Jan 2024, 02:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Why the cost is not relevant? Politicians state that motorists can save money by switching to fuel-efficient cars. If the cost of fuel becomes extremely cheap then politicians' argument cannot be supported. Thus, consumers will not switch to fuel-efficient cars, right?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,783
 [1]
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 16 Feb 2024, 12:47
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KONGPING
Why the cost is not relevant? Politicians state that motorists can save money by switching to fuel-efficient cars. If the cost of fuel becomes extremely cheap then politicians' argument cannot be supported. Thus, consumers will not switch to fuel-efficient cars, right?
Show more
Are you looking at (E)? If so, here's the exact language:
Quote:
 (E) The future cost of gasoline and other fuel cannot be predicted with absolute precision or certainty.
Show more
You're right that is gas becomes cheaper then there is a problem for the argument. However, (E) doesn't specify that gas will become cheaper -- it just says that the cost cannot be predicted with absolute precision or certainty. So, it is just as likely that gas will become more expensive, which would actually help the politician's argument.

Additionally, the whole bit about "absolute precision or certainty" comes into play: maybe we know the general trend of fuel prices, but don't know down to the cent. Lacking that level of "absolute" precision just wouldn't impact the argument one way or the other.

Because (E) is equally likely to help, hurt, or not impact the argument, it doesn't indicate a vulnerability. Eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!­
User avatar
Gorang
User avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2024
Last visit: 05 Oct 2025
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 42
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 (S)
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q87 V82 DI77
Schools: ISB '27 (S)
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q87 V82 DI77
Posts: 18
Kudos: 6
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 01 Oct 2024, 02:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Using similar reasoning as in option E, for option A how are we able to say that the extra miles driven by the fuel-efficient driver is enough to compensate for the low fuel cost?

sayantanc2k
Olivia2Chicargo
I chose E, reason is if one day the fuel price drops dramatically to level of the less-polluted hybrid energy like Hydrogen, then the drivers have no incentive to buy the hybrid cars (because the petrol-engine car are more powerful), therefore, will not help on the pollution decrease.

What is wrong with my thinking? Thanks

Option E states that the fuel price is unpredictable. However it is not stated that the price will come down. With similar argument as you have given, one may as well argue that the price will go up, and this option would then be a strengthening statement.
Show more
User avatar
Kritika_07
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2024
Last visit: 12 Oct 2025
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 14 Oct 2024, 03:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
one of the best explanation i have ever seen here. thanks a lot
ChiranjeevSingh
Understanding the Passage

Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids. - HC (Hybrid cars) << NHC (Nonhybrid cars) – in terms of FUEL/KM

And fuel produces air pollution, which contributes to a number of environmental problems. - Fuel -> Air pollution -> Environmental problems
Relating this statement to the previous one, the indication is that hybrid cars lead to less pollution and less environmental damage than nonhybrid cars.

Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel-efficient, - This statement presents an economic advantage of hybrid cars (which are more fuel-efficient, as given in the first statement).

and they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if we make them aware of that fact.- Motorists will be encouraged to use hybrid cars if they get to know that hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids. (Please note that what “that fact” refers to is not very clear. “that fact” could refer to the fact that hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids or that Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel-efficient. I’ve gone with the former reference.)

Therefore, we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars.- “Therefore” indicates that a conclusion is being presented here. The author concludes that we can reduce pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting the above economic advantage of hybrid cars. Please note that “this advantage” refers to the economic advantage of hybrid cars.

The Gist

The author concludes that we can reduce pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting the fact that people can save money by driving hybrid cars.
How will highlighting this fact help reduce pollution emitted by cars?
Pollution will reduce since hybrid cars use less fuel per km and thus probably produce less pollution per km.

The Gaps

There are several gaps in the argument:

1. Even though hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per km, what if they produce significantly more pollution per unit of fuel used? In such a case, even with less fuel, they may end up producing the same amount of pollution.
2. What if people who would not have otherwise bought cars start buying cars after hearing the economic advantage of hybrid cars? That might lead to more pollution than currently.
3. What if people who buy hybrid cars drive more kilometers than who buy nonhybrid cars? In such a case, even with less fuel per km, hybrid cars may end up consuming more fuel because they are driven for more kilometers. (Option A is around this gap)
4. What if nobody buys hybrid cars even after hearing about this lower price per kilometer advantage? Probably, hybrid cars are much more expensive
than nonhybrid cars, and this increased expense overshadows the benefits of lower fuel costs.
There might be other gaps also. Can you spot any other gaps?

Let’s see whether the following statement is also a potential gap:

The production of hybrid cars produces much more pollution than the production of nonhybrid cars.

Do you think the above statement highlights a gap in the argument?

No. This statement is not a gap in the argument.

Why?

Because the conclusion talks about “the total amount of pollution emitted by cars”.

The conclusion is not impacted by the pollution emitted in the production of cars. Can you see that?

Option Evaluation

(A)People with more fuel-efficient cars typically drive more than do those with less fuel-efficient cars.
 Correct.- This option is around the third gap that we identified. If people with more fuel-efficient cars drive more, then highlighting the economic advantage of hybrid cars or selling more hybrid cars may not bring down the pollution levels. Even with less pollution per km, if hybrid cars are driven more, they may lead to overall more pollution.
Is it guaranteed that hybrid cars will lead to more pollution?
No. And we’re not even looking for a guarantee. The correct option needs to just “indicate” a vulnerability in the argument.

(B)Not all air pollution originates from automobiles.
 Incorrect. -This option has ZERO impact on the argument. The conclusion is about reducing “the total amount of pollution emitted by cars.” Let’s say we change the option to below:
Only a very small proportion of the air pollution originates from automobiles.
The above statement still has ZERO impact on the argument since we’re concerned with...you know...reducing “the total amount of pollution emitted by cars”. Now, whether this amount is a small proportion of the total air pollution or it is a big proportion has NO impact on the argument.

(C)Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
 Incorrect.- This option has ZERO impact on the argument.
Whether hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity or not has no impact on whether increasing their popularity will bring down the pollution or not.

(D)Fuel-efficient alternatives to hybrid cars will likely become available in the future.
 Incorrect.- This option has ZERO impact on the argument.
Whether other alternatives will become available in the future or not has no impact on whether highlighting the advantage of these cars will bring down the pollution or not.

(E)The future cost of gasoline and other fuel cannot be predicted with absolute precision or certainty.
 Incorrect.- This option has ZERO impact on the argument.
Our ability to predict the price of fuel has NO impact on the argument. Note that this option is not saying that the cost of gasoline might decline or increase; it’s just talking about our ability to predict the prices.
Let’s say the option were:
The future cost of gasoline and other fuel will be lower than their current cost.
This statement has a slightly negative impact on the argument since if the future costs are lower, then people may not have much incentive to buy hybrid cars just for their lower fuel per km advantage.
Show more
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,832
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,832
Kudos: 986
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer 04 Nov 2025, 21:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts