Marcab wrote:
Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.
Which of the following best describes the roles of the portions in bold?
1)The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.
2)The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence.
3)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.
4)The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.
5)The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.
Responding to a pm:
(A) vs (C)
Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists.
The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.
What is the conclusion of this argument?
"These purchases will NOT lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists."
This is the position the argument takes.
So the position that the argument opposes is
"These purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists."
This has been given in our second bold statement: There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists.
This statement introduces the opposing conclusion.
(A) The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.
The first bold statement:
Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled.This is a premise and has been accepted as true. We know it has been accepted as true since the last line ends with - "...negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency"
We have seen above that the second bold statement tells us about a conclusion that the argument opposes.
So (A) is correct.
(C)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.
The evidence is "Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled."
That is, "the motorists have begun purchasing fuel efficient cars that give better mileage."
The second bold statement does not undermine this evidence at all. In fact, it builds up on it with - will it lead to overall decreased fuel consumption?
Hence (C) is not correct.