Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollut

Question

Sam : During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people com-mute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe : Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.
 
Which of the following most accurately describes how Felipe’s response is related to Sam’s argument?

(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion.

(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam’s conclusion is false.

(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam’s conclusion by his evidence.

(D) It argues that Sam’s conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.

(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam’s argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked.

This question is a part of QOTD Question Collection

Skywalker18 · Answer

Sam : During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people com-mute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe : Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more 
pollutants as they get older.

Sam's argument - Lesser cars during recession will lead to lesser pollution due to automobile exhaust .
Felipe's argument - During recession ,fewer new cars and older cars emit more pollutants .
 
(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion. Incorrect - It does not question the truth of premises
(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam’s conclusion is false.Incorrect - 
(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam’s conclusion by his evidence.
Correct - It present a new consideration and weakens Sam's conclusion 
(D) It argues that Sam’s conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.Incorrect 
(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam’s argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked. Incorrect 
Answer C

Abhishek009 · Answer

Sam : Recessions = Unemployment---->Fewer cars for commuting to office.----> Less Pollution
Felipe : Recessions = Unemployment----> Fewer people can afford new cars = Old cars => More pollution

(A) It  calls into question the truth of the premises  that Sam uses to support his conclusion.

The premise is - fewer people commute in cars to jobs

Felipe's statement doesn't call into question into the Premise used by Sam

(B) It makes an  additional claim that can only be true if Sam’s conclusion is false.

Felipe's statement brings into consideration alternate reasoning , and is independent of Sam’s conclusion

(C) It presents  an additional consideration  that  weakens the support given to Sam’s conclusion  by his evidence.

Filip's statement brings into question an additional consideration : Fewer people can afford new cars = Old cars ===> More Pollution

This is true...

(D) It  argues that Sam’s conclusion is true , although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.
 
Not at all true , Filip clearly refutes Sam's conclusion...

(E) It presents an  argument showing that the premises in Sam’s argument support an absurd conclusion  that Sam has overlooked.  
 
Not at all true , Filip presents an alternate reasoning and doesn't attempt to challenge Sam's conclusion 
 
Hence (C) is correct...

Senthil7 · Answer

Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people com-mute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe: Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more
pollutants as they get older.

Which of the following most accurately describes how Felipe’s response is related to Sam’s argument?

(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion  - No it actually challenges the way in which the conclusion is arrived at hence eliminate this answer. 
(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam’s conclusion is false.  - Opposite answer and incorrect. 
(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam’s conclusion by his evidence  - Correct! It uses the same premise as that of Sam's and provides an additional consideration thereby altering the or requiring Sam to re-think the conclusion. 
(D) It argues that Sam’s conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.  - Incorrect. It argues sam's conclusion may not necessarily be true. 
(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam’s argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked  - Trap Answer. but if closely looked at the argument does not declare the conclusion to be absurd neither does it challenge the premise rather it uses the same premise to add on another viewpoint. 
.
C is the right answer.

bluetrain · Answer

C - weakens the support

Where can we find a consideration that weakens the support?

nightblade354 · Answer

Hi  bluetrain ,

Here is Sam's reasoning: During recessions, unemployment typically rises.  Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession , since  fewer people com-mute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less. 
-- light blue = premise/support
-- dark blue = conclusion

Now that I have highlighted these areas, is it more clear? Felipe says older cars emit more pollution, and a recession makes people drive older cars. Thus, this weakens Sam's argument by providing another detail that has not been considered in his argument.

Does this help?

abhishekmayank · Answer

Hi  nightblade354 ,

I am still not satisfied. At best the option C weakens the conclusion, but certainly not the support given by Sam to reach the conclusion. Sam support to the conclusion, as you have highlighted in the light blue color, is  fewer  people commute in the car in the time of recession. Felipe's argument is not challenging the Sam's support by giving the evidence that it is in fact  more  people are commuting by car in recession. Instead, he gives another fallout of the recession of not being able to purchase new cars, which may coexist with the Sam's argument that fewer people commute by car in the recession. For this very reason option A is not correct.

nightblade354 · Answer

abhishekmayank , I can't disagree with you. I penned this response a long time ago, and was willing to overlook a key area in order to 'justify' the 'correct' answer. There are holes to say the least, which is why this isn't an official LSAT question. 'C' is the best answer choice, but it certainly isn't ideal, as stated. Good job!

MasteringGMAT · Answer

Felipe's response is related to Sam's argument in that it presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam's conclusion by his evidence. Therefore, the answer is (C).

Sam argues that during recessions, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases because fewer people commute to work in cars, resulting in fewer cars emitting pollutants into the air. However, Felipe points out that during recessions, people are less likely to buy new cars, which means that the cars on the road tend to be older and emit more pollutants.

Felipe's response presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam's conclusion by his evidence. It suggests that Sam's argument overlooks the fact that even if fewer people are commuting in cars, the cars that are on the road may be emitting more pollutants than usual due to their age. This consideration weakens the link between the recession and reduced air pollution that Sam is arguing for. Therefore, (C) is the most accurate description of how Felipe's response is related to Sam's argument.

anish0953 · Answer

even i was confused earlier , but it looked the best among them

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollut

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

Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollut

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