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

It is currently 23 Jul 2018, 06:56

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

5 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2015
Posts: 8
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 07 Jun 2017, 01:13
5
22
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  15% (low)

Question Stats:

77% (01:11) correct 23% (01:26) wrong based on 2030 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Originally posted by notwithstanding on 01 Aug 2015, 11:50.
Last edited by broall on 07 Jun 2017, 01:13, edited 1 time in total.
Edited topic name
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Expert Post
6 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3195
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 May 2016, 06:54
6
1
something123 wrote:
I eliminated A because I felt A supports the politician. It is better for the environment if people who drive more to drive with fuel efficient cars. Hence, A is not a flaw. What am I missing?


Since the fuel efficient car drivers would drive more number of kilometers, the total fuel consumed may not be reduced because of this extra driving, although fuel per kilometer would reduce. Take it this way:

Total fuel (X) = Fuel per kilometer (A) x kilometer driven (B)

It is given in the passage that A would reduce. From this the politician concludes that X would reduce. What could weaken the conclusion that X would reduce? - a statement that indicates B would increase.

In the process of concluding, the politicians assumed that B would not increase in the same proportion as A would reduce. Thus any statement that indicates that B would increase indicates that X may not be reduced as politicians are claiming.
Most Helpful Community Reply
6 KUDOS received
Queens MBA Thread Master
avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 182
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2015, 06:00
6
3
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.



Argument Analysis :

Plan - Promote Hybrid to reduce pollution.

Facts -
1. Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids

Premise (Based on) -
1. Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel efficient, and they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if motorist are aware of hybrid cars.


Pre-thinking :
For plan to succeed, Argument has assumed
1. Motorist will buy Hybrid once they are aware of technology and financial impact that they will get with the use of hybrid cars.
2. (If motorist buy hybrid), Motorist will not invest the saved money in non- Fuel efficient activity such as "Driving more", etc.

If any of the above assumption, fails then argument will fail.



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.
Say Person X has normal car and he spend 100$ for fuel for driving 100 miles,
Now due to fuel efficient hybrid, X spend 75$ for 125 miles, clearly X has used the money saved on activity that increases pollution ultimately.
So this option says, why plan may not be successful
Correct.


(B) Not all air pollution originates from automobiles.
Out of scope - there might be 100s of reason, we are intrested with pollution due to automobiles.

(C) Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
Nice fact - but does not impact - (In fact it says that plan will succeed) - Incorrect (Opposite effect)

(D) Fuel-efficient alternatives to hybrid cars will likely become available in the future.
Nice prediction, but out of scope does not impact argument - Incorrect

(E) The future cost of gasoline and other fuel cannot be predicted with absolute precision or certainty.
So what - if the prices are not predictable - Out of scope - Incorrect.
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 351
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jan 2016, 12:32
1
notwithstanding wrote:
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.


A). Correct. If people with more-fuel-efficient cars drive more than do those with less-fuel efficient then total pollution level will hardly decrease
B) Out of scope. We are interested in pollution from cars
C) Strengthens the conclusion. Probably motorists started to switch to hybrid cars.
D) We are interested in the future
E) Cost doesn't affect our conclusion
_________________

"Are you gangsters?" - "No we are Russians!"

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Posts: 11
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2016, 21:48
1
vishwaprakash wrote:
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.



Argument Analysis :

Plan - Promote Hybrid to reduce pollution.

Facts -
1. Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids

Premise (Based on) -
1. Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel efficient, and they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if motorist are aware of hybrid cars.


Pre-thinking :
For plan to succeed, Argument has assumed
1. Motorist will buy Hybrid once they are aware of technology and financial impact that they will get with the use of hybrid cars.
2. (If motorist buy hybrid), Motorist will not invest the saved money in non- Fuel efficient activity such as "Driving more", etc.

If any of the above assumption, fails then argument will fail.



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.
Say Person X has normal car and he spend 100$ for fuel for driving 100 miles,
Now due to fuel efficient hybrid, X spend 75$ for 125 miles, clearly X has used the money saved on activity that increases pollution ultimately.
So this option says, why plan may not be successful
Correct.


(B) Not all air pollution originates from automobiles.
Out of scope - there might be 100s of reason, we are intrested with pollution due to automobiles.

(C) Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
Nice fact - but does not impact - (In fact it says that plan will succeed) - Incorrect (Opposite effect)

(D) Fuel-efficient alternatives to hybrid cars will likely become available in the future.
Nice prediction, but out of scope does not impact argument - Incorrect

(E) The future cost of gasoline and other fuel cannot be predicted with absolute precision or certainty.
So what - if the prices are not predictable - Out of scope - Incorrect.


Hi, I got confused here, pls kindly help me out.
First I can totally understand the logic about why driving more could lead to higher air pollution in choice A.
But I think you kind of neglect two points:
1/ The argument actually talks about below causal relationship
letting motorists know the advantage of hybrid cars and encouraging them to buy hybrid cars--->reduced air pollution
so there is a comparisonis between the amount of air pollution created by driving a motor and that created by driving a hybrid car, rather than a comparison between the amount of air pollution created by driving a hybrid car and that created by driving a nonhybrid car (indicated in choice A).
After all, the argument doesn't indicate that the motorists will buy nonhybrid cars, right?
2/ Choice A seems to talk about what already happened. That means we are not sure what will happen if motorists drive hybrid cars. We cannot conclude that motorists with hybrid cars will drive more than motorists with nonhybrid cars, can we? If we get to that conclusion, we are assuming that this phenomenon described in Choice A will happen on motorist. But this assumption is not suggested in Choice A, right?
Please correct me if I am thinking wrong. I am always getting confused by thinking like that. Thanks in advance!!
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 6299
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2016, 22:27
1
HI phemiaYu
Quote:
1/ The argument actually talks about below causal relationship
letting motorists know the advantage of hybrid cars and encouraging them to buy hybrid cars--->reduced air pollution
so there is a comparisonis between the amount of air pollution created by driving a motor and that created by driving a hybrid car, rather than a comparison between the amount of air pollution created by driving a hybrid car and that created by driving a nonhybrid car (indicated in choice A).
After all, the argument doesn't indicate that the motorists will buy nonhybrid cars, right?


The arguement is that if we encourage the car buyers too use hybrid cars rather than nonhybrid, we will bring the pollution down. The catch is reducing POLLUTION by using hybrid cars.
Choice A correctly conveys that even if more hybrid cars were bought, it will not result in reduced pollution as these car tends to be used more. MEANS if you were paying more for fuel, the driver may cut down on unplanned/ extra visits. But the saving of money gives him incentive to travel to unplanned visits. So, finally we have same pollution levels(It can be slightly low, high or same depending on the extra he travels)

Quote:
2/ Choice A seems to talk about what already happened. That means we are not sure what will happen if motorists drive hybrid cars. We cannot conclude that motorists with hybrid cars will drive more than motorists with nonhybrid cars, can we? If we get to that conclusion, we are assuming that this phenomenon described in Choice A will happen on motorist. But this assumption is not suggested in Choice A, right?
Please correct me if I am thinking wrong. I am always getting confused by thinking like that. Thanks in advance!![/color]


The choice talks of a general trend and not something that has happened..


Hope it helps
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html


GMAT online Tutor

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 08 Apr 2016
Posts: 5
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 May 2016, 08:20
I eliminated A because I felt A supports the politician. It is better for the environment if people who drive more to drive with fuel efficient cars. Hence, A is not a flaw. What am I missing?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 22
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2016, 12:53
(C) Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
Nice fact - but does not impact - (In fact it says that plan will succeed) - Incorrect (Opposite effect)




I am confused about answer C.

Since Hybrid cars are already becoming popular, wouldn't this make politicians efforts less effective. Drivers are already becoming aware of the hybrid cars.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Posts: 2
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2016, 02:25
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
Expert Post
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3195
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2016, 12:56
kablayi wrote:
(C) Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
Nice fact - but does not impact - (In fact it says that plan will succeed) - Incorrect (Opposite effect)




I am confused about answer C.

Since Hybrid cars are already becoming popular, wouldn't this make politicians efforts less effective. Drivers are already becoming aware of the hybrid cars.


Some drivers have become aware does not imply that for the other drivers the awareness efforts would not be effective. In fact some drivers are aware implies that the other drivers are not and hence the politician's point would be valid for these other drivers. Option C could as well be a strengthening statement, not a weakening.
Expert Post
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3195
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2016, 13:02
Olivia2Chicargo wrote:
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 22
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2016, 15:04
sayantanc2k wrote:
kablayi wrote:
(C) Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
Nice fact - but does not impact - (In fact it says that plan will succeed) - Incorrect (Opposite effect)




I am confused about answer C.

Since Hybrid cars are already becoming popular, wouldn't this make politicians efforts less effective. Drivers are already becoming aware of the hybrid cars.


Some drivers have become aware does not imply that for the other drivers the awareness efforts would not be effective. In fact some drivers are aware implies that the other drivers are not and hence the politician's point would be valid for these other drivers. Option C could as well be a strengthening statement, not a weakening.




Thank you for your explanation but answer choice C doesn't say some drivers.

Posted from my mobile device
Expert Post
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3195
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2016, 06:10
kablayi wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
kablayi wrote:
(C) Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
Nice fact - but does not impact - (In fact it says that plan will succeed) - Incorrect (Opposite effect)




I am confused about answer C.

Since Hybrid cars are already becoming popular, wouldn't this make politicians efforts less effective. Drivers are already becoming aware of the hybrid cars.


Some drivers have become aware does not imply that for the other drivers the awareness efforts would not be effective. In fact some drivers are aware implies that the other drivers are not and hence the politician's point would be valid for these other drivers. Option C could as well be a strengthening statement, not a weakening.




Thank you for your explanation but answer choice C doesn't say some drivers.

Posted from my mobile device


Option C, Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity, directly implies that some of the drivers are aware.

Consider the following sentence:
The MBA degree has started to gain recognition among recruiters.
This sentence implies that some of the recruiters recognize the MBA degree; at the same time it also implies that there are other recruiters who do not recognize the MBA degree.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 30 Dec 2015
Posts: 91
GPA: 3.92
WE: Engineering (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Nov 2016, 21:23
kablayi wrote:
(C) Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
Nice fact - but does not impact - (In fact it says that plan will succeed) - Incorrect (Opposite effect)




I am confused about answer C.

Since Hybrid cars are already becoming popular, wouldn't this make politicians efforts less effective. Drivers are already becoming aware of the hybrid cars.


Lets look at the politicians view (and only pay attention to his view i.e. focus on how he joins A to B)

Less fuel used => lower air pollution (like CO, HC, NOx, PM etc). Therefore if more people used hybrids, this means less fuel will be used and hence lower air pollution.

Now, I could buy a chevy volt hybrid, which averages 50mpg on my 100 mile drive to work versus my neighbor, who drives a lexus IS350, which averages 25 mpg, but his commute to work is only 25miles. Now does the politicians theory hold true for the above example? NO. Because, in spite of driving a hybrid, I still use more fuel per day, 1 gallon/day to be precise, than my neighbor, who does not drive a hybrid. This means, in spite of driving a hybrid, my car contributes more to air pollution than my neighbors non-hybrid car.

Try the same and see if ans choice C makes sense.
Hope this makes sense.
_________________

If you analyze enough data, you can predict the future.....its calculating probability, nothing more!

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Posts: 10
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2016, 19:37
sayantanc2k wrote:
something123 wrote:
I eliminated A because I felt A supports the politician. It is better for the environment if people who drive more to drive with fuel efficient cars. Hence, A is not a flaw. What am I missing?


Since the fuel efficient car drivers would drive more number of kilometers, the total fuel consumed may not be reduced because of this extra driving, although fuel per kilometer would reduce. Take it this way:

Total fuel (X) = Fuel per kilometer (A) x kilometer driven (B)

It is given in the passage that A would reduce. From this the politician concludes that X would reduce. What could weaken the conclusion that X would reduce? - a statement that indicates B would increase.

In the process of concluding, the politicians assumed that B would not increase in the same proportion as A would reduce. Thus any statement that indicates that B would increase indicates that X may not be reduced as politicians are claiming.


I have selected choice A since other choices are less worthy than this one. However, I have one confusion in general about choice A- it assumes that hybrid car will generate as much as pollution and consume as much as fuel as the non-hybrid cars because fuel efficient cars drive more, however, in case of generating pollution and consuming fuel non-hybrid car will generate more than the hybrid car since it is driving more. In this case- does it actually weaken the argument?
Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1394
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2016, 20:37
metaphola wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
something123 wrote:
I eliminated A because I felt A supports the politician. It is better for the environment if people who drive more to drive with fuel efficient cars. Hence, A is not a flaw. What am I missing?


Since the fuel efficient car drivers would drive more number of kilometers, the total fuel consumed may not be reduced because of this extra driving, although fuel per kilometer would reduce. Take it this way:

Total fuel (X) = Fuel per kilometer (A) x kilometer driven (B)

It is given in the passage that A would reduce. From this the politician concludes that X would reduce. What could weaken the conclusion that X would reduce? - a statement that indicates B would increase.

In the process of concluding, the politicians assumed that B would not increase in the same proportion as A would reduce. Thus any statement that indicates that B would increase indicates that X may not be reduced as politicians are claiming.


I have selected choice A since other choices are less worthy than this one. However, I have one confusion in general about choice A- it assumes that hybrid car will generate as much as pollution and consume as much as fuel as the non-hybrid cars because fuel efficient cars drive more, however, in case of generating pollution and consuming fuel non-hybrid car will generate more than the hybrid car since it is driving more. In this case- does it actually weaken the argument?


No, your case is different from choice A. Choice A states that hybrid cars, which is fuel efficient cars, are driven more often then non-hybrid cars, which is less fuel-efficient cars.

In fact, your case is opposed to choice A, so your case will somewhat strengthen the argument.
_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Feb 2017
Posts: 40
Location: Korea, Republic of
Schools: LBS '19 (A)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.67
Reviews Badge
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2017, 00:35
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.

I was between A and E.
Initially, I thought E was good but then I realized that the conclusion does not hinge upon cost of fuel.
Only A would reverse the conclusion.

Hence A.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 114
Location: Taiwan
GPA: 3.34
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Feb 2018, 07:14
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.

The intention is to reduce pollution by switching to hybrid cars.
(A) weakens politicians argument because if switching to hybrids = driving more (using more fuels) then the proposed solution will not work.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Feb 2018
Posts: 13
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Apr 2018, 21:02
I think the logic that some have used to justify A is flawed. Some people have interpreted A to mean that switching to hybrid -> more driving. This isn't exactly the case - it's implied that usage of hybrids and drive distances are correlated but that doesn't mean there's causality. Even if there was causality, it could be the other way around - people who drive more happen to switch over to hybrids to save money. As a result I chose C as the argument hinges on the fact that people don't already know about hybrid cars. Am I missing something or is this just a poorly written question?
Re: Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer &nbs [#permalink] 12 Apr 2018, 21:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.