The country of Maravia has severe air pollution, 80 percent of which

Question

The country of Maravia has severe air pollution, 80 percent of which is caused by the exhaust fumes of cars. In order to reduce the number of cars on the road, the government is raising taxes on the cost of buying and running a car by 20 percent. This tax increase, therefore, will significantly reduce air pollution in Maravia.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) The government of Maravia is in the process of building a significant number of roadways.

(B) Maravia is an oil-producing country and is able to refine an amount of gasoline sufficient for the needs of its population.

(C) Maravia has had an excellent public transportation system for many years.

(D) Ninety percent of the population of Maravia is very prosperous and has a substantial amount of disposable income.

(E) In Maravia, cars that emit relatively low levels of pollutants cost 10 percent less to operate, on average, than do cars that emit high levels of pollutants.

ID 16796

philmat · Answer

Options C and D look very close. But on close examination, i will Go with option D as The answer.

The argument is that 80% of pollution comes from automobiles, and by increasing the taxes by 20%,people will buy fewer cars, or reduce the use of thier personal car..

From option C- if Maravia had an excellent transport system for years, then increasing the tax on automobile use will indirectly push consumers to the public trasport system, and the government will achieve its objective. This strengthens the argument.

But option D says that 90% of the population are prosperous and have a substantial amount of disposable income .. 
This fact weakens the argument in the sense that even If the tax is increased, they all still be able to pay, and will not in anyway abandon thier vehicles.

Answer : Option D.

Posted from my mobile device

saurabh9gupta · Answer

My thought-
Conclusion - tax increase will reduce the Air pollution
Situation - Weaken
Pre think - 
1. Tax increase will not help in reducing the pollution.
 a. May be the tax is on new cars and Maravia population drives old cars
 b. May be the people will still buy cars because public transport is bad.

Let's see the options
a. Highway increase does not affect the pollution problem. 
b.Out of Scope
c. That is good but no link to show that people will use it. Moreover, may be public transport can 
d. more disposable income means ready to spend more, may be they will somehow fail the plan.. NOT SURE OF THE LINK
e. This choice remains.

So now, I selected E and marked this choice in 2 min 50 seconds.. I am not sure how E weakens.

AnirudhaS · Answer

Exactly my thought process. However, I slightly differed when I came across the words  transportation system for many years  in option C. This means the factor of transportation is NOT changing, its a constant.

Also in the passage it says  80 percent of which is caused by the exhaust fumes of cars . Notice fumes of CAR causes pollution. Public transportation consists mainly of trains and buses. You can only consider cars as public transport when they are for e.g. "share taxis".

Nishant1795 · Answer

I had a similar experience - both D and E weaken to some extent. It is just a decision of which option weakens more:

Option D says that disposable income is enough so increasing prices will not affect the sales of cars.
Option E says that the cars that emit low levels of pollution are anyway cheap. However if people are anyway not buying cheap cars, how will increasing the taxes on some cars make sure that people go for cheap cars?

MS1014 · Answer

Do you notice that E is actually not a weakener its a strengthener, If the car proposed in the question

cars that emit relatively low levels of pollutants   cost 10 percent less to operate, people will start buying these cars. And if it so happens the pollution should be less than its present value.  So the govt, plan works.

Nimabinia · Answer

I think I can help you with this question, government's plan is to increase tax in order to reduce numbers of cars on the road, hence reducing overall pollution. 
E is a completely different plan by adopting a low emission car. You have to stick to the original argument. 
Hope it helps.

mSKR · Answer

E is completely irrelevant. You don't know how was the situation before Tax . You have no information after tax implementation.

faat99 · Answer

OG ans is A but the correct answer is D. If anyone can prove me wrong, let me know.
(A) The government of Maravia is in the process of building a significant number of roadways.
(D) Ninety percent of the population of Maravia is very prosperous and has a substantial amount of disposable income.

OG ans explains for A states new road does not necessarily equates more car usage, they can render unused, while D they suggest people are wealthy hence new tax will have less effect on people.

Both A and D require assumption / inference, however A contains a better assumption than D. It is because: a government's decision to build new roadways would always be based on some level of consultation / demand-supply analysis, as a result it is unlikely to build empty road and waste tax payer's money, time, resource and efforts; note also the phrase "building significant number of roads" - let's say at least some car will be added to the road.

On the other hand one, ans D require assumption of human psychology that if you are wealthy you are less sensitive to tax. This assumption is based plainly on stereotype and can be arbitrary, and I know very well, from my personal experience / studies, that wealthy people are wealthy because they are smart / sensitive about money. elasticity and people's reaction to tax pretty much depends case by case. Hence, unlike ans A that has an assumption that is based on common government practice / logical rationale, ans D is more susceptive to challenge. A is a better argument.

Sa800 · Answer

does anyone have a reply to this? He does raise a good point....

guddo · Answer

The country of Maravia has severe air pollution, 80 percent of which is caused by the exhaust fumes of cars. In order to reduce the number of cars on the road, the government is raising taxes on the cost of buying and running a car by 20 percent. This tax increase, therefore, will significantly reduce air pollution in Maravia. 
 
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

The argument assumes that raising the cost of owning and using a car by 20 percent will make people drive much less, and that this will  significantly  reduce pollution. So the best weakener is the one showing that the tax increase will not reduce car use very much.

(A) The government of Maravia is in the process of building a significant number of roadways.

This does not weaken the argument much. More roads may affect traffic, but it does not directly show that the tax increase will fail to reduce car use.

(B) Maravia is an oil-producing country and is able to refine an amount of gasoline sufficient for the needs of its population.

This is irrelevant. The issue is whether higher taxes will reduce the number of cars on the road, not whether Maravia can produce enough gasoline.

(C) Maravia has had an excellent public transportation system for many years.

This actually tends to strengthen the argument. If public transportation is excellent, people may find it easier to stop using cars when taxes rise.

(D) Ninety percent of the population of Maravia is very prosperous and has a substantial amount of disposable income.

This is the strongest weakener.  If most people are wealthy, a 20 percent increase in car costs may not change their behavior much , so the number of cars on the road may not fall significantly.

(E) In Maravia, cars that emit relatively low levels of pollutants cost 10 percent less to operate, on average, than do cars that emit high levels of pollutants.

This does not seriously weaken the argument. If anything, it suggests people might shift toward cleaner cars.

Answer: (D)

guddo · Answer

You are wrong because  A attacks the argument only indirectly , while  D attacks the key causal step directly .

The argument is:
higher car taxes -> fewer cars on the road -> significantly less pollution.

D directly weakens that chain:
if 90 percent of people are very wealthy, the 20 percent tax increase may not reduce car ownership or car use much. So the conclusion about significantly lower pollution becomes weak.

A is weaker because building more roads does not directly show that the tax increase will fail. More roads could be built for many reasons, and even if they are used, that still does not tell us whether the higher tax will or will not reduce car use. So A needs an extra speculative step. D needs much less.

So the test is not asking which choice you can defend with a story. It is asking which choice most seriously weakens the argument.  That is D, because it hits the price-sensitivity assumption head-on.

The country of Maravia has severe air pollution, 80 percent of which

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

The country of Maravia has severe air pollution, 80 percent of which

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