Dear Friends,
please help clarify the following evaluate question
Ethanol, a fuel derived from corn, can be used alone to power cars or along with gasoline to reduce the amount of gas consumed. Unlike gasoline, ethanol is easily renewable since it is primarily converted from the sun's energy. Moreover, compared with conventional gasoline, pure ethanol is a cleaner-burning fuel. To save energy and reduce pollution, many individuals advocate the increased usage of ethanol as a primary fuel source in conjunction with or in place of gasoline.
In evaluating the recommendation to increase the use of ethanol, it would be important to research all of the following EXCEPT:
(A) Whether the energy required to grow and process corn used as fuel is greater than the amount of energy ultimately produced
(B) Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline
(C) Whether ethanol is as efficient a fuel as gasoline
(D) Whether it is possible to produce more ethanol than is currently produced
(E) Whether the process of growing corn for fuel would result in as much pollution as does the production of conventional gasoline
I doubted about (B) and (D)
(B): Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline
1st path is:
yes, more energy is saved under using in conjunction with or in place of gasoline,
that's great. it support the conclusion that "to save energy......."
2nd Path is:
no, no more energy is saved under using conjunction with or in place of gasoline.
that mean less or equal.
if equal, individual can choose what they want, no strengthen no weaken,
if less, no reason to choose ethanol.
above, (B) is not good choice.
(D)Whether it is possible to produce more ethanol than is currently produced
yes, more produce. its a good news. people won't be pushed to choose gasoline, it can reduce pollution, but I am not sure whether save energy cuz I have no idea about the consumption to power cars. can it strengthen the conclusion if just strengthen either energy or reduce pollution?
No. produce less or equal than currently produced, the supply cannot meet the demand
emmmm......people won't be pushed to choose gasoline if import ethanol. or people will be pushed to choose if no import. seems strengthen but no weaken.
Please point out where is wrong? thanks in advance.
Reviewing the explanation from MANHATTAN, I am afraid I did not catch the idea:
This answer choice uses many of the same words as the conclusion. But that's a trap! The conclusion makes no distinction between these two methods of using ethanol; it just recommends in general that we do use ethanol. If more energy is saved using ethanol in conjunction with gasoline, then the conclusion holds. If more energy is saved using ethanol in place of gasoline, then the conclusion holds. Either way, it's the same thing! There aren't "two paths" here. I'll keep this one.
in my opinion, If more energy is saved using ethanol in conjunction with gasoline, then the conclusion holds. If more energy is saved using ethanol in place of gasoline, then the conclusion holds
it is the one path under two different using way "in conjunction with gasoline" and "in place of gasoline" and the second path is no more energy is saved under using two different ways.
Please point out my issues.
thanks a lot.
have a nice day
>_~
please help clarify the following evaluate question
Ethanol, a fuel derived from corn, can be used alone to power cars or along with gasoline to reduce the amount of gas consumed. Unlike gasoline, ethanol is easily renewable since it is primarily converted from the sun's energy. Moreover, compared with conventional gasoline, pure ethanol is a cleaner-burning fuel. To save energy and reduce pollution, many individuals advocate the increased usage of ethanol as a primary fuel source in conjunction with or in place of gasoline.
In evaluating the recommendation to increase the use of ethanol, it would be important to research all of the following EXCEPT:
(A) Whether the energy required to grow and process corn used as fuel is greater than the amount of energy ultimately produced
(B) Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline
(C) Whether ethanol is as efficient a fuel as gasoline
(D) Whether it is possible to produce more ethanol than is currently produced
(E) Whether the process of growing corn for fuel would result in as much pollution as does the production of conventional gasoline
I doubted about (B) and (D)
(B): Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline
1st path is:
yes, more energy is saved under using in conjunction with or in place of gasoline,
that's great. it support the conclusion that "to save energy......."
2nd Path is:
no, no more energy is saved under using conjunction with or in place of gasoline.
that mean less or equal.
if equal, individual can choose what they want, no strengthen no weaken,
if less, no reason to choose ethanol.
above, (B) is not good choice.
(D)Whether it is possible to produce more ethanol than is currently produced
yes, more produce. its a good news. people won't be pushed to choose gasoline, it can reduce pollution, but I am not sure whether save energy cuz I have no idea about the consumption to power cars. can it strengthen the conclusion if just strengthen either energy or reduce pollution?
No. produce less or equal than currently produced, the supply cannot meet the demand
emmmm......people won't be pushed to choose gasoline if import ethanol. or people will be pushed to choose if no import. seems strengthen but no weaken.
Please point out where is wrong? thanks in advance.
Reviewing the explanation from MANHATTAN, I am afraid I did not catch the idea:
This answer choice uses many of the same words as the conclusion. But that's a trap! The conclusion makes no distinction between these two methods of using ethanol; it just recommends in general that we do use ethanol. If more energy is saved using ethanol in conjunction with gasoline, then the conclusion holds. If more energy is saved using ethanol in place of gasoline, then the conclusion holds. Either way, it's the same thing! There aren't "two paths" here. I'll keep this one.
in my opinion, If more energy is saved using ethanol in conjunction with gasoline, then the conclusion holds. If more energy is saved using ethanol in place of gasoline, then the conclusion holds
it is the one path under two different using way "in conjunction with gasoline" and "in place of gasoline" and the second path is no more energy is saved under using two different ways.
Please point out my issues.
thanks a lot.
have a nice day
>_~
