The environmentally harmful emissions of cars can be reduced in two

Question

The environmentally harmful emissions of cars can be reduced in two ways. One way is to replace gasoline with a cleaner burning fuel, such as ethanol or gasohol. The second way is to use a hybrid engine that is powered by both electricity and combustion. Hybrid engines emit less pollution than do clean burning fuels, so an individual driving a hybrid car benefits the environment the most.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Individuals have the option of choosing between hybrid cars and cleaner burning fuels.
B. Over the lifetime of the car, the cost of using cleaner burning fuels is more than the cost of buying a hybrid car.
C. The beneficial effect to the environment of using both a hybrid car and cleaner burning fuel is no greater than using a hybrid car alone.
D. People have an incentive to reduce environmentally harmful emissions.
E. There is no way to completely eliminate the environmentally harmful emissions of cars.

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

The environmentally harmful emissions of cars can be reduced in two ways. One way is to replace gasoline with a cleaner burning fuel, such as ethanol or gasohol. The second way is to use a hybrid engine that is powered by both electricity and combustion. Hybrid engines emit less pollution than do clean burning fuels, so an individual driving a hybrid car benefits the environment the most.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Individuals have the option of choosing between hybrid cars and cleaner burning fuels. 
The poit is already mentioned in the argument and is not specifically an assumption that the reader has to make.
 B. Over the lifetime of the car, the cost of using cleaner burning fuels is more than the cost of buying a hybrid car. 
The cost is not discussed in the argument but what is discussed is the emissions
 C. The beneficial effect to the environment of using both a hybrid car and cleaner burning fuel is no greater than using a hybrid car alone. 
Correct choice since the argument provides two options and if one option had more benefits than the other then the buyers would buy the one with greater benefits.
 D. People have an incentive to reduce environmentally harmful emissions. 
This is a good point for why will they buy environment friendly vehicle but incentives are not the only way to make the consumer buy environment friendly things taxation can be one and heavy fines can be other.
 E. There is no way to completely eliminate the environmentally harmful emissions of cars.  
out of scope

anje29 · Answer

Premise : 
The environmentally harmful emissions of cars can be reduced in two ways. One way is to replace gasoline with a cleaner burning fuel, such as ethanol or gasohol. The second way is to use a hybrid engine that is powered by both electricity and combustion. Hybrid engines emit less pollution than do clean burning fuels .

Conclusion : so an individual driving a hybrid car benefits the environment the most.

Prephrase : Nothing more can be done to benefit the environment more than a hybrid car alone.

A. Individuals have the option of choosing between hybrid cars and cleaner burning fuels.
  Out of scope. No impact on conclusion.

B. Over the lifetime of the car, the cost of using cleaner burning fuels is more than the cost of buying a hybrid car.
  Out of scope. No impact on conclusion.

C. The beneficial effect to the environment of using both a hybrid car and cleaner burning fuel is no greater than using a hybrid car alone.
 Matches with Prepahrase , correct. If negated conclusion will fall apart.

D. People have an incentive to reduce environmentally harmful emissions.
  Out of scope. No impact on conclusion.

E. There is no way to completely eliminate the environmentally harmful emissions of cars.
  Out of scope. No impact on conclusion.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

Premise:  Hybrid engines emit less pollution than do clean burning fuels.

Conclusion:  An individual driving a hybrid car benefits the environment the most.

This argument relies on the assumption that because hybrid engines emit less pollution, use of them benefits the environment the  “most.” Choice C  is correct because it shows that that combination of the hybrid and the cleaner fuels does not have a greater effect than the hybrid alone.

Choice A  is not necessary to the argument because the argument is not about what individuals will do or can do; the conclusion is about the effect on the environment.

The cost of the options is also not part of the argument, so  choice B  is out of scope.

Choice D  is not addressed in the argument’s conclusion or premise, so it cannot be the assumption.

Choice E  is irrelevant to the argument.

Answer: C

Advait01 · Answer

How could option C be an assumption. According to option C we may infer one more case in which beneficial effect of using both can be equal to using hybrid car alone and it is wrong according to question.

guddo · Answer

The environmentally harmful emissions of cars can be reduced in two ways... Hybrid engines emit less pollution than do clean burning fuels, so an individual driving a hybrid car benefits the environment the most. 
 
The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

There are two stated ways to reduce emissions. Hybrids emit less pollution than cleaner fuels. Therefore, hybrids provide  the greatest environmental benefit . The conclusion claims hybrids are the best option overall.

A. Individuals have the option of choosing between hybrid cars and cleaner burning fuels.

This concerns availability of choice. The argument’s logic does not depend on whether people can choose. Irrelevant.

B. Over the lifetime of the car, the cost of using cleaner burning fuels is more than the cost of buying a hybrid car.

This concerns cost. The argument compares environmental impact, not price. Irrelevant.

C. The beneficial effect to the environment of using both a hybrid car and cleaner burning fuel is no greater than using a hybrid car alone.

If combining both reduced pollution more than a hybrid alone, then driving only a hybrid would  not  benefit the environment the most. The conclusion depends on ruling that out. Necessary.

D. People have an incentive to reduce environmentally harmful emissions.

Motivation does not affect which option reduces more pollution. Irrelevant.

E. There is no way to completely eliminate the environmentally harmful emissions of cars.

Whether emissions can be eliminated entirely does not affect the comparison being made. Irrelevant.

Answer: (C)

The environmentally harmful emissions of cars can be reduced in two

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The environmentally harmful emissions of cars can be reduced in two

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