Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
09 Feb 2026, 09:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Environmental officials in Velonia note that the share of national emissions attributed to passenger vehicles has declined from 27 percent to 19 percent over the last decade. They cite this trend as evidence that stricter vehicle standards have been effective in reducing overall air pollution. However, satellite readings over the same period show that Velonia’s total particulate pollution has actually increased.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the officials’ reasoning?
A. Vehicle kilometers traveled rose sharply as Velonia’s population grew, while per-kilometer emissions from new cars fell, leaving total passenger-vehicle emissions roughly unchanged.
B. During the same decade, Velonia implemented incentives for electric vehicle adoption, though these vehicles still make up a small share of the national fleet.
C. Five years ago, the national inventory reclassified emissions from ride-hailing fleets and small delivery vans from “passenger vehicles” to “light commercial transport,” without any change in their emission levels.
D. Peak-hour traffic fell in several city centers after congestion fees were introduced, though off-peak traffic increased in suburban corridors.
E. Regional cross-border haze events became more frequent, raising measured ambient pollution in Velonia during several recent years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the officials’ reasoning?
A. Vehicle kilometers traveled rose sharply as Velonia’s population grew, while per-kilometer emissions from new cars fell, leaving total passenger-vehicle emissions roughly unchanged.
B. During the same decade, Velonia implemented incentives for electric vehicle adoption, though these vehicles still make up a small share of the national fleet.
C. Five years ago, the national inventory reclassified emissions from ride-hailing fleets and small delivery vans from “passenger vehicles” to “light commercial transport,” without any change in their emission levels.
D. Peak-hour traffic fell in several city centers after congestion fees were introduced, though off-peak traffic increased in suburban corridors.
E. Regional cross-border haze events became more frequent, raising measured ambient pollution in Velonia during several recent years.
09 Feb 2026, 09:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Environmental officials in Velonia note that the share of national emissions attributed to passenger vehicles has declined from 27 percent to 19 percent over the last decade. They cite this trend as evidence that stricter vehicle standards have been effective in reducing overall air pollution. However, satellite readings over the same period show that Velonia’s total particulate pollution has actually increased.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the officials’ reasoning?
A. Vehicle kilometers traveled rose sharply as Velonia’s population grew, while per-kilometer emissions from new cars fell, leaving total passenger-vehicle emissions roughly unchanged.
B. During the same decade, Velonia implemented incentives for electric vehicle adoption, though these vehicles still make up a small share of the national fleet.
C. Five years ago, the national inventory reclassified emissions from ride-hailing fleets and small delivery vans from “passenger vehicles” to “light commercial transport,” without any change in their emission levels.
D. Peak-hour traffic fell in several city centers after congestion fees were introduced, though off-peak traffic increased in suburban corridors.
E. Regional cross-border haze events became more frequent, raising measured ambient pollution in Velonia during several recent years.
So the officials are saying that since passenger vehicles went from 27 percent of national emissions down to 19 percent, their stricter vehicle standards must have worked. But then you’re told total pollution actually went up during the same period. So now you're thinking either the standards didn’t help, or that 27 to 19 percent drop is not telling the full story.
A sounds logical at first glance. More people driving, new cars being cleaner, and in the end total emissions from cars stay roughly the same. But if the total from cars didn’t go down, then that percentage drop doesn’t really make sense unless something else is going on. It hints that the standards didn’t really help, but it still doesn’t fully explain why the share dropped. It kind of sits in the middle.
B is incorrect because even though Velonia promoted electric vehicles, the choice clearly says they still make up a small part of the fleet. That means they couldn’t have caused a major drop in emissions share. So they’re not strong enough to explain or challenge the officials’ claim.
C is the one that really breaks their logic. It says that five years ago they started classifying ride-hailing and small delivery vans as commercial vehicles instead of passenger vehicles, even though they’re still the same cars with the same emission levels. So the cars didn’t get cleaner, they just moved into a different label. Now the passenger vehicle percentage drops on paper, but the actual emissions haven’t changed at all. And that’s exactly what the officials are using as proof their policy worked. So if this is true, their whole argument falls apart.
D is about traffic patterns changing in cities. Some peak-hour traffic down, off-peak up. That’s just noise. Doesn’t explain anything about emissions or category share.
E is about haze blowing in from other regions. Fine for explaining why overall air quality went down, but that has nothing to do with Velonia’s own vehicle data. Not relevant to the argument.
So yeah, C is the only one that really undercuts what the officials are saying. If you’re measuring one thing five years ago and a different thing today, of course the percentage drops. Doesn’t mean the policy worked. Just means you changed the way you’re counting.
Answer: C
Environmental officials in Velonia note that the share of national emissions attributed to passenger vehicles has declined from 27 percent to 19 percent over the last decade. They cite this trend as evidence that stricter vehicle standards have been effective in reducing overall air pollution. However, satellite readings over the same period show that Velonia’s total particulate pollution has actually increased.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the officials’ reasoning?
A. Vehicle kilometers traveled rose sharply as Velonia’s population grew, while per-kilometer emissions from new cars fell, leaving total passenger-vehicle emissions roughly unchanged.
B. During the same decade, Velonia implemented incentives for electric vehicle adoption, though these vehicles still make up a small share of the national fleet.
C. Five years ago, the national inventory reclassified emissions from ride-hailing fleets and small delivery vans from “passenger vehicles” to “light commercial transport,” without any change in their emission levels.
D. Peak-hour traffic fell in several city centers after congestion fees were introduced, though off-peak traffic increased in suburban corridors.
E. Regional cross-border haze events became more frequent, raising measured ambient pollution in Velonia during several recent years.
So the officials are saying that since passenger vehicles went from 27 percent of national emissions down to 19 percent, their stricter vehicle standards must have worked. But then you’re told total pollution actually went up during the same period. So now you're thinking either the standards didn’t help, or that 27 to 19 percent drop is not telling the full story.
A sounds logical at first glance. More people driving, new cars being cleaner, and in the end total emissions from cars stay roughly the same. But if the total from cars didn’t go down, then that percentage drop doesn’t really make sense unless something else is going on. It hints that the standards didn’t really help, but it still doesn’t fully explain why the share dropped. It kind of sits in the middle.
B is incorrect because even though Velonia promoted electric vehicles, the choice clearly says they still make up a small part of the fleet. That means they couldn’t have caused a major drop in emissions share. So they’re not strong enough to explain or challenge the officials’ claim.
C is the one that really breaks their logic. It says that five years ago they started classifying ride-hailing and small delivery vans as commercial vehicles instead of passenger vehicles, even though they’re still the same cars with the same emission levels. So the cars didn’t get cleaner, they just moved into a different label. Now the passenger vehicle percentage drops on paper, but the actual emissions haven’t changed at all. And that’s exactly what the officials are using as proof their policy worked. So if this is true, their whole argument falls apart.
D is about traffic patterns changing in cities. Some peak-hour traffic down, off-peak up. That’s just noise. Doesn’t explain anything about emissions or category share.
E is about haze blowing in from other regions. Fine for explaining why overall air quality went down, but that has nothing to do with Velonia’s own vehicle data. Not relevant to the argument.
So yeah, C is the only one that really undercuts what the officials are saying. If you’re measuring one thing five years ago and a different thing today, of course the percentage drops. Doesn’t mean the policy worked. Just means you changed the way you’re counting.
Answer: C
