GMAT Club Forumhttps://gmatclub.com:443/forum/ If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehichttps://gmatclub.com/forum/if-a-person-chooses-to-walk-rather-than-drive-there-is-one-less-vehic-87369-20.html Page 2 of 2

 Author: jabhatta2 [ 13 Jan 2023, 20:40 ] Post subject: If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehic VeritasPrepBrian GMATCoachBen AnthonyRitz AjiteshArun AndrewN - I did not think (e) was accurate because of the “if statement” specifically. Conclusion : Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.OA : (E) seems to be focusing on the blue if-statement. But why focus on the blue if statement ? We should be focusing on the 'bridge' / 'connection' between the blue if-statement and the pink result. The blue if-statement is completely hypothetical. Nothing about the blue HAS TO BE TRUE / REALISTIC. Thus I didn't think (E) was frankly needed (Given the blue if-statement could be untrue in real life) ---------------------Let me give an example of what I mean hypothetical Analogy Quote:Conclusion - If humans could walk on the sun, pollution on Earth will be greatly reducedWeaken (option e) People sometimes walk on the sunIn my analogy - The blue condition is completely within a hypothetical context (only possible in video games perhaps)Furthermore, we know based on real life experience - the humans CURRENTLY CANNOT walk on the sun. Thus I don't see why "People sometimes walk on the sun" HAS TO BE true when "walking on the sun " is a hypothetical IF STATEMENT

 Author: AnthonyRitz [ 14 Jan 2023, 11:33 ] Post subject: If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehic jabhatta2 wrote:VeritasPrepBrian GMATCoachBen AnthonyRitz AjiteshArun AndrewN - I did not think (e) was accurate because of the “if statement” specifically. Conclusion : Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.OA : (E) seems to be focusing on the blue if-statement. But why focus on the blue if statement ? We should be focusing on the 'bridge' / 'connection' between the blue if-statement and the pink result. The blue if-statement is completely hypothetical. Nothing about the blue HAS TO BE TRUE / REALISTIC. Thus I didn't think (E) was frankly needed (Given the blue if-statement could be untrue in real life) I'm afraid you have it backwards. The point of E isn't that people don't do something they could be doing (even in an extreme hypothetical). It's that they ALREADY DO IT. You gave this analogy:Quote:---------------------Let me give an example of what I mean hypothetical Analogy Quote:Conclusion - If humans could walk on the sun, pollution on Earth will be greatly reducedWeaken (option e) People sometimes walk on the sunBut that's the reverse of what the argument is saying. Read it again. E ("people sometimes drive...") doesn't match the condition in the argument ("if people would walk..."), it's the reverse of it. In your analogy, E should actually say "people sometimes don't walk on the sun."The point is this: The argument is proposing that things would be better if people acted a certain way. But if everyone already DOES act that way, then things couldn't improve if people did so (i.e. kept doing what they're already doing). Things could only stay the same. If everyone already walks whenever possible, having people walk whenever possible won't improve anything.

 Author: mysterymanrog [ 15 Jan 2023, 06:30 ] Post subject: Re: If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehic jabhatta2 wrote:VeritasPrepBrian GMATCoachBen AnthonyRitz AjiteshArun AndrewN - I did not think (e) was accurate because of the “if statement” specifically. Conclusion : Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.OA : (E) seems to be focusing on the blue if-statement. But why focus on the blue if statement ? We should be focusing on the 'bridge' / 'connection' between the blue if-statement and the pink result. The blue if-statement is completely hypothetical. Nothing about the blue HAS TO BE TRUE / REALISTIC. Thus I didn't think (E) was frankly needed (Given the blue if-statement could be untrue in real life) ---------------------Let me give an example of what I mean hypothetical Analogy Quote:Conclusion - If humans could walk on the sun, pollution on Earth will be greatly reducedWeaken (option e) People sometimes walk on the sunIn my analogy - The blue condition is completely within a hypothetical context (only possible in video games perhaps)Furthermore, we know based on real life experience - the humans CURRENTLY CANNOT walk on the sun. Thus I don't see why "People sometimes walk on the sun" HAS TO BE true when "walking on the sun " is a hypothetical IF STATEMENTI believe you have lost track of the conclusion. The argument states that, because there is a reduction in pollution when a person chooses to walk rather than to drive, if everyone chose to walk rather than drive, it is possible to reduce pollution. If option E is negated, then there is no way to reduce pollution - everyone who can choose to walk, is already doing so. Therefore, it is a requirement that there are at least some people who must be able to choose to walk rather than drive. Otherwise, it is not possible to reduce pollution as the argument states.Posted from my mobile device

 Author: unraveled [ 15 Jan 2023, 08:25 ] Post subject: Re: If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehic If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?(A) Cutting down on pollution can be achieved in a variety of ways.(B) Taking public transportation rather than driving is not always feasible. (C) Walking is the only feasible alternative to driving that results in a reduction in pollution.(D) There are people who never drive but who often walk.(E) People sometimes drive when it is feasible to walk instead.C and E are the two contenders.C is good but if one can question that is walking the only alternative then one can be sure to eliminate it. It is about necessary or sufficient. Is it necessary that walking has to be the only alternative. No, not likely. There can still be others. Also, conclusion has a hint about how pollution reduction can be achieved. If we focus on how then we can certainly see why E is good enough a choice.Answer E.

 Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] Powered by phpBB © phpBB Grouphttp://www.phpbb.com/