Kim: Some people claim that the battery-powered electric car represent

Question

Competition Mode Question

Kim: Some people claim that the battery-powered electric car represents a potential solution to the problem of air pollution. But they forget that it takes electricity to recharge batteries and that most of our electricity is generated by burning polluting fossil fuels. Increasing the number of electric cars on the road would require building more generating facilities since current facilities are operating at maximum capacity. So even if all of the gasoline-powered cars on the roads today were replaced by electric cars, it would at best be an exchange of one source of fossil-fuel pollution for another.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which Kim’s argument depends?

(A) Replacing gasoline-powered cars with battery-powered electric cars will lead to a net increase in the total number of cars on the road.

(B) Gasoline-powered cars are currently not the most significant source of fossil-fuel pollution.

(C) Replacing gasoline-powered cars with battery-powered electric cars is justified only if electric cars produce less air pollution.

(D) While it is being operated, a battery-powered electric car does not cause any significant air pollution.

(E) At least some of the generating facilities built to meet the demand for electricity for battery-powered electric cars would be of a type that burns fossil fuel.

yashwardhan · Answer

Premise - The claim presented and the subsequent derivation.
Conclusion - ...,it would at best be an exchange of one source of fossil-fuel pollution for another.

We need to be concerned with the conclusion. 
Wk that Premise + Assumption = Conclusion 
What is the assumption that would make the conclusion true?

Possible Assumption(s) :
Electricity is generated only by burning fossil fuels.

A- out of scope(not concerned with the total number of cars on the road)
B- out of scope(not concerned with what source is the most significant for FF pollution)
C- irrelevant (it is not the air pollution from the car we are concerned with, but rather the poll from burning FF to produce electricity)
D- irrelevant (it is not the air pollution from the car we are concerned with, but rather the poll from burning FF to produce electricity)
E - This hits the assumption.

Answer : E

freedom128 · Answer

(A) is irrelevant as the argument in the stimulus does not depend on whether or not the total number of cars on the road increase or decrease. What we already know is that Kim has already accounted for an increase in the number of electric cars, which can be found in the third sentence of the stimulus. And that is all that is needed for her conclusion to be valid.

(B) is an irrelevant assumption. Nowhere in the stimulus does Kim make any claims about how significantly do gas powered cars contribute to fossil fuel pollution. This does not affect the conclusion that electric cars produce fossil fuel pollution through power plants.

(C) may be tempting but we have to be aware of what the conclusion actually is. Kim does not make any claims about whether it is right to replace gas powered cars with electric ones; she just concludes that electric cars would contribute to fossil fuel pollution. And so we see that this is not a necessary assumption.

(D) is unnecessary assumption. We don’t care if electric cars pollute while being operated; that is not the issue. The argument rests on the idea that the pollution comes from the power plants that will be built to supply the electric cars.

(E) is  the correct answer . Kim’s conclusion is based on the premise that fossil fuel pollution will remain relatively the same because electric cars would necessitate the building of more power plants. In turn these power plants would contribute to fossil fuel pollution because they burn fossil fuels. And that is where the assumption lies: That at least some of these new plants would burn fossil fuels. Negating (E) by saying that “None of the generating facilities built…would be a type that burns fossil fuel,” severely weakens the conclusion because if they don’t burn fossil fuel they clearly won’t be contributing to fossil fuel pollution.

FINAL ANSWER IS (E)

unraveled · Answer

Kim: Some people claim that the battery-powered electric car represents a potential solution to the problem of air pollution. But they forget that it takes electricity to recharge batteries and that most of our electricity is generated by burning polluting fossil fuels. Increasing the number of electric cars on the road would require building more generating facilities since current facilities are operating at maximum capacity. So even if all of the gasoline-powered cars on the roads today were replaced by electric cars, it would at best be an exchange of one source of fossil-fuel pollution for another.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which Kim’s argument depends?

(A) Replacing gasoline-powered cars with battery-powered electric cars will lead to a net increase in the total number of cars on the road.

(B) Gasoline-powered cars are currently not the most significant source of fossil-fuel pollution.

(C) Replacing gasoline-powered cars with battery-powered electric cars is justified only if electric cars produce less air pollution.

(D) While it is being operated, a battery-powered electric car does not cause any significant air pollution.

(E) At least some of the generating facilities built to meet the demand for electricity for battery-powered electric cars would be of a type that burns fossil fuel.

The whole argument is based on the concern that Kim raised that if battery powered cars are to replace gasoline-powered cars as a solution to problem of air pollution it would still be not serving the purpose since the source of electricity would still be fossil fuels(see the last sentence).

Only option E tells us that hence the correct answer.

IMO Answer E.

churuand · Answer

Let s focus on the conclusion: "it would at best be an exchange of one source of fossil-fuel pollution for another". In my opinion, the author concluded that the exchange will be equivalent, and assumed that they both will be the same in quantity of producing fossil-fuel pollution. However, what if the electrical is producing more pollution while operating, as stated in negating option D? Then it will become a deficit exchange since the electrical car will cause more harm to the environment than simply an exchange. IMO option D is the best

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
  replacing gas with electric vehicles will not reduce pollution
  electric vehicles charge's are powered fossil fuel energy plants
  new plants must be build since current are at full capacity
  even after replacing all gas with electric, pollution stays the same

ASSUMPTION
(A) the argument does not depend on a net increase in electric cars after replacing all gas, because the author assumes that pollution stays the same even if their is no net increase in num of cars!
(B) irev;
(C) irev;
(D) irev;

Ans (E) if no new plant is of the fossil fuel type, then the argument falls.

David nguyen · Answer

Kim: Some people claim that the battery-powered electric car represents a potential solution to the problem of air pollution. But they forget that it takes electricity to recharge batteries and that most of our electricity is generated by burning polluting fossil fuels. Increasing the number of electric cars on the road would require building more generating facilities since current facilities are operating at maximum capacity. So even if all of the gasoline-powered cars on the roads today were replaced by electric cars, it would at best be an exchange of one source of fossil-fuel pollution for another.

EV -> possible solution to air pollution
EV-batteries -> charged  by burns polluting fossil fuels 
More EV -> More charging facilities (b/c current max output)
Replace GV with EV -> Same Pollution problem (or just like GV, EV -> causes pollution)

What is the missing link here?

What we know: Current Facilities are already at max output production. So we need more facilities in order to power the EV. We know that in order to generate electricity, one must burn polluting fossil fuels.

More EV will need more facilities. So facilities are the main electric sources for EV. Where do they get the energy to turn into electricities for EV? Wind Turbines, Solar panels, etc.? We don't know. But Premise indicates that the electricities come from a polluting source. Hence, those facilities must use some kind of polluting source.

Let's go to the answer choices.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which Kim’s argument depends?

The argument is only concern whether the EV will lead to the same amount of pollution. Net increase in the total number of cars on the road is not releavant. (A) is out
 
What GVs do does not help us to know the amount of pollution that EVs will cause.
 
The heart of the problem is the air pollution. This one, if anything, still leaves the possibility that the facility will cause way more air pollution than GVs, even though EVs produce less air pollution. (C) is out.
 
Same concept as in (C). 
 
This matches out thought and is also the last remaining answer choice. (E) is the correct answer.

morgueicons · Answer

Hello, can anyone help me with this? Thank you!

The argument on the following page has been standardised and an argument map diagram provided. Write a short evaluation of the argument (150-200 words).
• If you think the argument provides a compelling reason for thinking that the conclusion is true, consider what parts of the argument are weakest (1-3). Explain why someone might take these weaknesses to undermine the argument and why you think they are mistaken.
• If you think the argument does not provide a compelling reason for thinking that the conclusion is true, discuss its main problems (1-3). Explain why they undermine the argument. If additional information can save the argument say what this is. If the argument is fatally flawed, explain why.
• Make sure you consider BOTH the truth of the premises and the validity of the arguments in your evaluation.

The argument
Some people claim that the battery-powered electric car represents a potential solution to the problem of fossil fuel pollution. But they forget that it takes electricity to recharge batteries and that most of our electricity is generated by burning polluting fossil fuels. So even if all of the petrol and diesel cars on the roads today were replaced by electric cars, it would at best be an exchange of one source of fossil fuel pollution for another.

Standard form
1. It takes electricity to recharge batteries.
2. Most of our electricity is generated by burning polluting fossil fuels.
Therefore:
3. Even if all of the petrol and diesel cars on the roads today were replaced by electric cars, it would at best be an exchange of one source of fossil fuel pollution for another.
Therefore:
C. The battery-powered electric car is not a potential solution to the problem of fossil fuel pollution.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kim: Some people claim that the battery-powered electric car represent

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

Kim: Some people claim that the battery-powered electric car represent

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