Proponents of the electric car maintain that when

Question

Proponents of the electric car maintain that when the technical problems associated with its battery design are solved, such cars will be widely used and, because they are emission-free, will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions. But unless we dam more rivers, the electricity to charge these batteries will come from nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Each of these three power sources produces considerable environmental damage. Thus, the electric car ____________.

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

(A) will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe
(B) will probably remain less popular than other types of cars
(C) requires that purely technical problems be solved before it can succeed
(D) will increase the total level of emissions rather than reduce it
(E) will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation

Source: LSAT

Cartman4179 · Accepted Answer

The answer is A. Answer E messes with the wording to try to trap you into the answer. The environmentalists are saying that electric cars eliminate environmental impact. It is definitely still possible to have them not be as great as the environmentalists think, but still be greater than the current system.

Answer A is right for that very reason. It will have worse consequences than the proponents believe, because the proponents believe it will have ZERO consequences. That's why A is right.

This may sound a little fuzzy, but I'll give you the advice that helped me on the LSAT (which I think offers much tougher CR questions than the GMAT). When I was doing the LSAT, I kept missing stupid CR questions until I realized one very important fact. There are no varying degrees of how "good" an answer is on the CR portion. One answer is RIGHT and the other four are WRONG. If you go through the 5 choices and think that two or more "could" be right, then something is wrong. It means that you are missing a key nuance somewhere. Either in the prompt, the question, or the answer choice. When that happens, I usually start by rereading the choices I'm debating between. After that I reread the question, then I reread the prompt (assuming that you haven't spotted the issue along the way). I give that order because I've found that for me personally, it breaks down like this. When I'm in that situation, about 60% of the time my error was in missing a nuance in the choices i'm debating between. About 30% of the time the error is in reading the other choices. And then about 10% of the time it's from the question or the prompt.

Whenever I've tutored people I've told them that this is the single most valuable piece of information I ever figured out. It allowed me to go from consistently making stupid errors, to literally never missing a single CR question. It'll take some time to figure it out, but I encourage you to try it. When you do figure it out you'll feel a million times more confident on CR questions.

vannbj · Answer

Economist, my only issue with E is that the text doesn’t warrant a statement about the net affect. The proponents of those cars believe that the environmental degradation will be abated that’s caused just by emission. It doesn’t mention anything else which IMO is necessary for a net affect statement. The text does absolutely support A though because it points out things that the proponents have not explicitly weighed.

Gnpth · Answer

i go with A...

The author with all his reasoning says that switching to electric cars won’t necessarily reduce environmental damage.

(A) will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe-  Seems to be better option- hold. 
(B) will probably remain less popular than other types of cars-  Info can be true sometime but not always true, 
(C) requires that purely technical problems be solved before it can succeed-  uses similar terminology as in the passage but presents irrelevant information 
(D) will increase the total level of emissions rather than reduce it-  Too extreme or out of scop e.
(E) will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation-  the author never compares levels of environmental damage. So out. .

A is the correct answer. Please post the exact source of the question. Is it a LSAT question??

sheolokesh · Answer

The term "Each of these three power sources produces considerable environmental damage" in question, did not state will it be higher or lower than that of auto emissions. So how could we say that E-cars will have WORSE impact on environment? How could it be A.

Rather, E stays neutral. Seems E must be the suitable one..

And as for the term "environmental degradation" in option E. Check the premise, which has "will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation". So my take is E.

Experts, please help...

adkikani · Answer

Hi Experts  GMATNinja   mikemcgarry

I was able to cross out only B confidently (popularity in now where discussed in the argument)

For C-> confused between success of cars and its wide usage.

D -> it after solving technical problems, electric cars are widely used, then without cutting the source of these battery (ie nuclear or coal based plants) total level of emission is bound to increase.

E-> same reasoning as in (D)

GMATNinja · Answer

According to the passage, if the technical problems are solved, electric cars will be widely used. Choice (C) can, indeed, be inferred from the proponents' claim in the first sentence. The author does not dispute this claim. Instead, the author assumes that the claim is true and then builds an argument on that hypothetical situation. So while choice (C) is a valid inference made in the argument, it is not the logical conclusion of the argument.

We are only told that "each of these three power sources produces considerable environmental damage." We are not told HOW exactly they cause environmental damage. Perhaps those power sources produce environmental degradation in other ways besides emissions. Choice (D) cannot be logical inferred without further information.

The author suggests that, even though automobile emissions will be reduced, powering electric cars will lead to an increase in environmental degradation from the three power sources mentioned. But the author does NOT necessarily contend that the environmental degradation from the power sources will outweigh the "abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions."

In other words, the author suggests that the "abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions" will be offset by an increase in environmental degradation caused by powering the electric cars. However, the author does not indicate the  degree  to which that abatement will be offset. The author's argument is valid whether electric cars produce a net reduction or a net increase in environmental degradation, so (E) can be eliminated.

romeotc · Answer

Dear experts,
@GMATNinja;  GMATNinjaTwo

I still find A not persuasive as the correct answer (even though I was able to eliminate all other choices). This option just doesn't sound logical to me. Below is my explanation. I'd appreciate if you could help me understand why A is the correct answer here. 
According to the stimulus, the car proponents believe that the car "will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions". So we know that they believe that this source of environmental damage will be reduced, but we don't know about their beliefs regarding other environmental damage and the overall "environmental consequences" as a whole. It's totally possible that the proponents did consider both the environmental pros and cons of the car, including the damage caused by the electricity power sources, and still they believed that the pros are much better than cons (i.e. the net effect will be a considerable net reduction). So we can't conclude that the car will "have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe".

Thank you.

GMATNinja · Answer

Notice the word "may" in choice A:

That one little word changes the entire meaning of the answer choice! We do not need to know for sure that the proponents have not already considered the overall environmental consequences. All we need to know is that, according to what's in the passage, the proponents  might  not have considered those other consequences and thus  may  be overestimating the environmental benefits of electric cars.

Remember, we are looking for an answer that " most  logically completes the argument." You've already eliminated the other four choices. Choice (A) is reasonable based on the information given, so it is definitely the best answer.

I hope that helps!

gmatexam439 · Answer

Proponents of the electric car maintain that when the technical problems associated with its battery design are solved, such cars will be widely used and, because they are emission-free, will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions. But unless we dam more rivers, the electricity to charge these batteries will come from nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Each of these three power sources produces considerable environmental damage. Thus, the electric car_________

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

The crux of the argument is that the author is trying to prove the proponents wrong. The author sites situations that will degrade the environment more than the car emissions would. We must not forget here that he sites the 3 situations just to REFUTE the proponents' stand. The author is not concerned about the direct impact of the cars on environment, but is worried about the wrong thinking of the proponents.

(A) will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe - Correct as per our thinking above. 
(B) will probably remain less popular than other types of cars - We can't say this from the passage above. The passage is about the environment degradation and not the popularity of cars. 
(C) requires that purely technical problems be solved before it can succeed - Irrelevant. 
(D) will increase the total level of emissions rather than reduce it - Emissions will be decreased. This is opposite of what is given in the passage. 
(E) will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation - We don't know the net effect. Maybe damming of rivers will be done on a smaller scale than before. We just don't have sufficient information about this option. Nevertheless, the argument is about refuting the proponents and this option doesn't talk about the main point.

rekhabishop · Answer

Hey Experts,

I don't agree with OA, here. 
A is too strong. The author does not say that the electric cars would worsen the environment.
I believe that E is our safest bet.
Hopefully, I am correct. :p

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

Check out the following posts below: 1) https://gmatclub.com/forum/proponents-o ... l#p1898298 2) https://gmatclub.com/forum/proponents-o ... l#p1899187

Skywalker18 · Answer

Hi rekhabishop,

Proponents of the electric car maintain that when the technical problems associated with its battery design are solved, such cars will be widely used and, because they are emission-free, will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions. But unless we dam more rivers, the electricity to charge these batteries will come from nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Each of these three power sources produces considerable environmental damage. Thus, the electric car ____________.

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

(A) will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe -- Correct -- This answer choice is not saying that the effects are going to be negative, or that the negative effects will outweigh the positive effects. It's just saying that the positive effects won't be as great as the proponents believe because they forgot to factor in the recharging of the batteries.
(B) will probably remain less popular than other types of cars -- Incorrect -- can't say for sure
(C) requires that purely technical problems be solved before it can succeed -- Irrelevant
(D) will increase the total level of emissions rather than reduce it -- Incorrect -- can't say for sure -- we don't know whether environment degradation due to electric cars will be more than that of other cars
(E) will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation -- Incorrect -- maybe electric cars will produce a net reduction in environmental degradation but not as much as proponents believe

Sarah claims that peanut butter is good for you. But Sarah failed to consider that peanut butter is high in saturated fat. Therefore, peanut butter is not as healthy as Sarah claims.

It follows a specific pattern. Someone says something, undermining evidence is provided, and a conclusion that says that the person is wrong is suggested.

Same thing in this question. Someone says that the electric car will be good for the environment, undermining evidence is offered, and then we're asked to provide the conclusion that the electric car will not be as good for the environment as some people claim.

nawaf52 · Answer

Here is an explanation I found on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUmDTd45Igc

gmatexam439 · Answer

Proponents of the electric car maintain that when the technical problems associated with its battery design are solved, such cars will be widely used and, because they are emission-free, will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions. But unless we dam more rivers, the electricity to charge these batteries will come from nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Each of these three power sources produces considerable environmental damage. Thus, the electric car ____________.

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

(A) will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe -- correct 
(B) will probably remain less popular than other types of cars -- out of scope 
(C) requires that purely technical problems be solved before it can succeed -- out of scope 
(D) will increase the total level of emissions rather than reduce it -- we are talking about environmental degradation 
(E) will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation -- It can mean equal as well.

danielarasan · Answer

Proponents of the electric car maintain that when the technical problems associated with its battery design are solved, such cars will be widely used and, because they are emission-free, will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions. But unless we dam more rivers, the electricity to charge these batteries will come from nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Each of these three power sources produces considerable environmental damage. Thus, the electric car ____________.

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

(A) will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe.  According to the passage, the "Proponents believe that the electrict car... will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation". As they did not consider the impacts of power plants, we can conclude that the electric car will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe 
(B) will probably remain less popular than other types of cars.  (can not prove it) 
(C) requires that purely technical problems be solved before it can succeed.  (can not prove it) 
(D) will increase the total level of emissions rather than reduce it.  (can not prove it) 
(E) will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation.  (44% marked this one. The electric car could actually produce a Net Reduction if the impact of reducing auto emissions > power sources damage. The passage does not provides evidence to compare both impacts and, therefore, you can not conclude that it will not produce a net reduction.

BusinessMaster22 · Answer

A: CORRECT. The argument suggests that the production of electric cars is not without consequences, specifically those which pose a threat to the environment. These "hidden" ramifications weaken the proponents' conclusion that environmental degradation will be mitigated by switching to electric cars.

B: Irrelevant. We are not concerned with the popularity of electric cars.

C: Fails to address the crux of the argument - that electric cars are not without environmental risks.

D: While this could be possible, the argument neither makes this distinction, nor does it provide evidence to suggest that this may be the case.

E: Like D, we have no way of knowing whether the total level of emissions will rise or fall as a result of increased electric car production, because this comparison is never made. All we know is that electric cars do pose a threat to the environment, albeit indirectly.

Akshaynandurkar · Answer

I think option A is the correct choice. To understand the choice, focus on the tone and structure of the passage. First author presents what proponents of the passage think and according to them using electric cars will result in abatement of environmental degradation. Then author presents his own reasoning. Why the author is mentioning that other three sources - hydroelectric, nuclear , and coal have considerable negative impact. To let us reader knows that even with these three sources, negative impact won't be net zero. it will have some considerable negative impact. Option E is more on neutral tone but author does not seem to be neutral on the issue. Author's tone is pessimistic and not neutral. The words "each of three sources have considerable negative impact" suggest that author believes the electric car will have more negative impact even though more dams are built to produce electricity. This CR question requires both critical thinking and skill to understand the tone of the author

agrasan · Answer

I was stuck between A and E but there is a simple logic to eliminate E.

Let's say auto emissions release 50T harmful gases, and nuclear and coal power plants only release 75T harmful gases (river dams maybe 20T because they are less harmful), this way, auto emissions is still a worse deal than nuclear-coal plants so we can't conclude that electric cars won't result in reduction in environmental degradation but we can conclude that degradation will be less better than its proponents may have thought of  because of 55T extra release of gases.

Proponents of the electric car maintain that when

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Proponents of the electric car maintain that when

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards