Company spokesperson: In lieu of redesigning our plants

Question

Company spokesperson: In lieu of redesigning our plants, our company recently launched an environmental protection campaign to buy and dispose of old cars, which are generally highly pollutive. Our plants account for just 4 percent of the local air pollution, while automobiles that predate 1980 account for 30 percent. Clearly, we will reduce air pollution more by buying old cars than we would by redesigning our plants.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the company spokesperson’s argument?

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the company spokesperson’s argument?

(A) Only 1 percent of the automobiles driven in the local area predate 1980.

(B) It would cost the company over $3 million to reduce its plants’ toxic emissions, while its car-buying campaign will save the company money by providing it with reusable scrap metal.

(C) Because the company pays only scrap metal prices for used cars, almost none of the cars sold to the company still run.

(D) Automobiles made after 1980 account for over 30 percent of local air pollution.

(E) Since the company launched its car-buying campaign, the number of citizen groups filing complaints about pollution from the company’s plants has decreased.

Source: LSAT

moutikli · Accepted Answer

Company spokesperson: In lieu of redesigning our plants, our company recently launched an environmental protection campaign to buy and dispose of old cars, which are generally highly pollutive. Our plants account for just 4 percent of the local air pollution, while automobiles that predate 1980 account for 30 percent. Clearly, we will reduce air pollution more by buying old cars than we would by redesigning our plants.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the company spokesperson’s argument?

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the company spokesperson’s argument?

IMO, the answer is (C)

(A) Only 1 percent of the automobiles driven in the local area predate 1980. -  It does not matter how many automobiles are driven predate 1980. No matter how few is the number of automobiles, it is given that they account for 30% of the pollution.

(B) It would cost the company over $3 million to reduce its plants’ toxic emissions, while its car-buying campaign will save the company money by providing it with reusable scrap metal. -  This actually strengthens the argument.

(C) Because the company pays only scrap metal prices for used cars, almost none of the cars sold to the company still run. -  The argument is air pollution can be reduced by buying the old cars and not by redesigning the plants. But, since the company pays only scrap metal prices for the used cars, we can say that almost none of those still run. Then how can they account for 30% of the pollution. This actually weakens the argument.

(D) Automobiles made after 1980 account for over 30 percent of local air pollution. -  The argument is air pollution can be reduced by buying the old cars and not by redesigning the plants. So, automobiles made after 1980 are irrelevant here.

(E) Since the company launched its car-buying campaign, the number of citizen groups filing complaints about pollution from the company’s plants has decreased. _  The number of citizen groups filing complaints about pollution is out of context here.

sobby · Answer

C is a weakener ..It points that cars that Company will buy are not running anymore
.so it will not effect the cars that are currently on streets causing pollution.. ..

Posted from my mobile device

chesstitans · Answer

I am sure that this question will never be chosen as one of questions that appear in the actual exam.
The source is from LSAT, so the pattern looks much different from a gmat question.
A is a trap.
both A and C use the same pattern that the cars bought by the company will have no effect on cars running on streets.

Basshead · Answer

I realize this message is a few years old but maybe this will help someone else.

The reasoning is not the same.

A states that only 1 percent of the automobiles driven in the local area predate 1980. If only 1% of automobiles predate 1980, while still accounting for 30% pollution, this actually   strengthens   the company spokesperson's argument -- 1% of the automobiles are contributing a  disproportional  amount of pollution.

C tells us that none of the cars sold to the company still run. In this case we have reason to doubt the argument. If almost none of the cars sold to the company still run, is the company actually reducing air pollution?

C is the answer.

unraveled · Answer

A is irrelevant - 1% or 2% or more none matter.
B is opposite to what we are looking for. It strengthens by giving a solid reason for its conclusion.
C is a clear winner.
D is again irrelevant.
E is fine had the argument already accepted the conclusion. It is in future so irrelevant.

Answer C.

Fdambro294 · Answer

The GAP that appears between the premises/plan ——-> conclusion/“plan will work to get to goal” is the following:

The plan is to buy back older cars and dispose of those cars. By doing this, the company will be doing MORE to reduce air pollution than it would have been doing had it redesigned its plants.

The major premise used to support this conclusion is that old, pre-1980 cars still on the road contribute to 30% of the air pollution while the plants contribute to only 4% of the air pollution.

Cars designed before 1980 and being driven on the road ——-> does not necessarily equate to “purchasing and disposing OLD cars”

For the evidence cited to support the conclusion, the author must be assuming that the plant will be purchasing some of these pre-1980 cars that are leading to more relative pollution.

What if this were not the case? What if the plant didn’t buy back these specific cars made before 1980? Then the evidence used would not logically support the conclusion made by the author.

C directly targets the assumption and this GAP. If almost none of the cars purchased by the company even run on the road, they do not emit any air pollution. It would therefore make no sense to think that buying these cars would have any effect on reducing the air pollution.

C is the correct answer.

Posted from my mobile device

arushi118 · Answer

If almost none of the bought cars still run, then they weren’t contributing much pollution anyway—so buying them won’t significantly reduce air pollution. That seriously weakens the argument.
So, C is correct.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

Old cars (pre‐1980) account for 30% of local air pollution, our plants account for 4%. Company is choosing to buy and scrap old cars instead of redesigning plants.

Conclusion:  This will reduce air pollution more than redesigning plants would.

Assumptions: 
Buying old cars will actually remove enough of them from the road to significantly cut that 30% of pollution.
These cars are currently being driven and polluting.

We need to weaken the argument, show the campaign will not reduce air pollution more than redesigning plants would.

(A)  This could be  opposite  instead, because if only 1% of cars make up 30% of pollution, each old car is hugely polluting, so buying them could be effective.

(B)  This is  irrelevant . Costs and savings irrelevant to which reduces pollution more; it’s about effectiveness, not cost.

(C)  Because the company pays scrap metal prices, almost none of the cars sold to the company still run. It means If the cars bought already don’t run, they aren’t polluting now; removing them does not reduce current pollution. This kills the benefit of the campaign. Weakens strongly.

(D)  This is again irrelavant.

(E)  Complaints decreased doesn’t mean actual pollution from plants is less than 4%; irrelevant to comparing pollution reduction impact.

Only  (C)  make sense and is correct.

Answer: C

Company spokesperson: In lieu of redesigning our plants

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

Company spokesperson: In lieu of redesigning our plants

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