Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer

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 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.



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?



(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.

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!!

HI phemiaYu


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)



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


Hope it helps

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?

(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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I was confused between A and C, and chose C.
Conclusion : Highlight the advantage of hybrid cars to reduce pollution emitted by cars.
Option C: It's already popular so highlighting the advantage is fruitless. Since it negates the conclusion I choose this.
Please help understand why C is wrong.

To be precise, the politician concludes that "we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars." Here's how the argument breaks down:

• Fuel produces air pollution.
• Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per km than non-hybrids.
• Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel efficient.
• Motorists will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if we make them aware of the fuel efficiency of those cars.
• Therefore, we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrids.

However, we have no evidence that just because motorists CAN save money by driving hybrids, they WILL make cash savings and fuel savings their priority. What if motorists take advantage of their savings by simply driving MORE, thereby minimizing the amount of fuel saved in the process of switching to a hybrid?

Well, that's essentially what choice (A) says:


If this were true, then we'd have good reason to doubt that encouraging motorists to drive hybrid cars will help reduce pollution.

Now, choice (A) doesn't refute or disprove the politician's argument. But it doesn't have to disprove the argument to be a good answer choice. We were asked which choice most indicates a vulnerability in the argument, and this certainly qualifies. That's why we keep (A) and continue evaluating the other choices.


Choice (C) does not say that hybrid cars are "already popular."

Here's the exact wording of choice (C), one more time:


If hybrid cars have only begun to gain popularity, then there could still be plenty of motorists who aren't YET fully aware of their fuel efficiency advantages. This is more of a reason to SUPPORT the politician's argument than to doubt it, because pushing for even more popularity could result in more people driving hybrid cars (and therefore help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars).

Choice (C) does not attack a logical vulnerability in the politician's argument, and could even be interpreted as a reason to support the argument. That's why we eliminate (C).

(A) remains the best answer choice because it's the one that most indicates a vulnerability in the argument.

On a relative scale, even if fuel efficient cars travel more than non-fuel efficient cars. The stimuli mentions that hybrids consume "significantly" less fuel than non-hybrids.

With respect to this view, wouldn't the hybrid be still way too fuel efficient given the difference in relative scale between the cost (distance travelled) and benefit (fuel consumption)

Hi Lord Voldemort! I had no idea that you were taking the GMAT.

You're right that the passage tells us that hybrids consume "significantly" less fuel than non-hybrids. However, what does "significantly" less mean? 10%? 50%? We're not given that information, so we can't assign an exact value to the word "significant."

Similarly, (A) tells us that people with more fuel-efficient cars "typically drive more" than people with less fuel-efficient cars. What does "more" mean? 1 mile a day? 100 miles a day? Again, we have no idea and can't make any assumptions.

So, (A) doesn't provide us with ironclad proof that encouraging people to drive hybrids will NOT help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars. But to answer the question, we don't NEED ironclad proof. We just need to select the answer choice that "most indicate[s] a vulnerability of the politician's argument."

(A) indicates vulnerability: if the increased mileage driven by typical hybrid drivers cancels out the reduction in air pollution, then the total amount of pollution will NOT be reduced. Even if we don't have enough information to say that (A) destroys the conclusion, it certainly points out a potential vulnerability in the politician's argument.

So (A) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

Let's focus on this part - 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.


This part essentially tells us that if Motorist drive fuel-efficient cars, they can save money and as a result, they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars (fuel-efficient) if there are informed about this.

And the author concludes that this (informing people about the benefits) would reduce the overall pollution emitted by cars in this country.


What if people who drive the most - drive fuel-efficient cars, in that case, they will save money and also drive more.

Think of it with a simple example - Amy drives 100 miles for $50 and now with fuel-efficient hybrid cars she drives 150 miles for $45 dollars. Driving more would mean the overall pollution level will not come down.


Hope this helps.

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.