Today's low gasoline prices make consumers willing to indulge their

Question

Today's low gasoline prices make consumers willing to indulge their preference for larger cars, which consume greater amounts of gasoline as fuel. So United States automakers are unwilling to pursue the development of new fuel-efficient technologies aggressively. The particular reluctance of the United States automobile industry to do so, however, could threaten the industry's future.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the claim above about the future of the United States automobile industry?

(A) A prototype fuel-efficient vehicle, built five years ago, achieves a very high 81 miles per gallon on the highway and 63 in the city, but its materials are relatively costly.

(B) Small cars sold by manufacturers in the United States are more fuel efficient now than before the sudden jump in oil prices in 1973.

(C) Automakers elsewhere in the world have slowed the introduction of fuel-efficient technologies but have pressed ahead with research and development of them in preparation for a predicted rise in world oil prices.

(D) There are many technological opportunities for reducing the waste of energy in cars and light trucks through weight, aerodynamic drag, and braking friction.

(E) The promotion of mass transit over automobiles as an alternative mode of transportation has encountered consumer resistance that is due in part to the failure of mass transit to accommodate the wide dispersal of points of origin and destinations for trips

Basim2016 · Answer

Hi, 
A.... costly parts... IRRELEVANT. 
B.... Out of scope... Not touching possible danger in the future.
C.... This shows the future concern and so desired steps by the automakers. 
D.... Distractor ... Different , IRRELEVANT concern.
E....Tricky.. but still IRRELEVANT as that issue can be resolved thru small feeder buses.

C.. Correct.

Regards, 
Basim

Posted from my mobile device

Bbharathkumar · Answer

To support the claim that the United States automobile industry's reluctance to pursue fuel-efficient technologies could threaten its future, we need to identify an option that demonstrates a potential negative impact on the industry's competitiveness or market position due to this reluctance.

Let's evaluate each option:

(A) A prototype fuel-efficient vehicle, built five years ago, achieves a very high 81 miles per gallon on the highway and 63 in the city, but its materials are relatively costly.
This option doesn't directly address the future threat to the US automobile industry but rather provides a historical example and a cost concern.

(B) Small cars sold by manufacturers in the United States are more fuel efficient now than before the sudden jump in oil prices in 1973.
This option shows improvement in fuel efficiency but doesn't explain how reluctance to develop new technologies could threaten the industry's future.

(C) Automakers elsewhere in the world have slowed the introduction of fuel-efficient technologies but have pressed ahead with research and development of them in preparation for a predicted rise in world oil prices.
This option shows that while US automakers are not pursuing new technologies, their competitors are continuing to develop them. This could lead to US automakers being at a disadvantage when oil prices rise, supporting the claim about the industry's future threat.

(D) There are many technological opportunities for reducing the waste of energy in cars and light trucks through weight, aerodynamic drag, and braking friction.
This option indicates that there are opportunities for improvement but doesn't directly address the competitive threat to the US industry.

(E) The promotion of mass transit over automobiles as an alternative mode of transportation has encountered consumer resistance that is due in part to the failure of mass transit to accommodate the wide dispersal of points of origin and destinations for trips.
This option is about consumer resistance to mass transit and doesn't directly relate to the future threat to the automobile industry.

Correct Answer: (C)
(C) provides the most support for the claim by highlighting that global competitors are continuing to develop fuel-efficient technologies, potentially placing US automakers at a future competitive disadvantage.

Posted from my mobile device

Adit_ · Answer

Actually found this really hard since I didnt really understand the stem on what basis it will threaten the industry's future. Is it the depletion of gasoline eventually? Is it the pollution aspect or what not sure. But according to options we just need to make a link such that we know that USA is missing out on something if they dont immediately pursue fuel-efficiency aggressively. 
IMO Option C is the only one that directly talks of how others havr slowed down yet researching and developing for predicted oil prices in future. Not too convinced but that is the only one that makes sense.

guddo · Answer

Today's low gasoline prices make consumers willing to indulge their preference for larger cars, which consume greater amounts of gasoline as fuel. So United States automakers are unwilling to pursue the development of new fuel-efficient technologies aggressively. The particular reluctance of the United States automobile industry to do so, however, could threaten the industry's future. 
 
Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the claim above about the future of the United States automobile industry?

The argument is: low gas prices push demand toward bigger cars, so US automakers slack on fuel-efficient tech. That reluctance could hurt them later, so the best support shows a realistic scenario where fuel efficiency will matter again and competitors will be better prepared.

(A) A prototype fuel-efficient vehicle built five years ago gets very high mileage, but its materials are costly.

This shows fuel-efficient tech is possible but expensive. It does not show why US automakers’ reluctance threatens their future.

(B) Small cars sold by US manufacturers are more fuel efficient now than before 1973.

This suggests improvement has happened, which weakens the idea that they are “unwilling to pursue” fuel-efficient tech aggressively, and it does not show a future threat.

(C) Automakers elsewhere have slowed introductions but are pushing R and D in preparation for a predicted rise in world oil prices.

This supports the threat directly. If oil prices rise, consumers will value fuel efficiency again. Foreign automakers will be ready because they kept investing, while US automakers will lag because they did not.  That creates a clear competitive risk to the US industry’s future.  It links today’s reluctance to tomorrow’s disadvantage.

(D) There are many technological opportunities to reduce energy waste.

This says opportunities exist, but it does not show that failing to pursue them will hurt US automakers specifically, or that market conditions will make them necessary.

(E) Mass transit promotion faces resistance.

This suggests people will keep using cars, but it does not connect to fuel-efficient technology or a threat to US automakers.

Answer: (C)

Today's low gasoline prices make consumers willing to indulge their

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

Today's low gasoline prices make consumers willing to indulge their

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