complete the following

Expert replies

sq720: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 59; Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:05 pm

by sq720 » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:11 am

8. Proponents of the electric car maintain that when the
technical problems associated with its battery design
are solved, such cars will be widely used and, because
they are emission-free, will result in an abatement of
the environmental degradation caused by auto
emissions. But unless we dam more rivers, the
electricity to charge these batteries will come from
nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Each of these three
power sources produces considerable environmental
damage. Thus, the electric car _______.
Which one of the following most logically completes
the argument?
(A) will have worse environmental consequences

than its proponents may believe
(B) will probably remain less popular than other
types of cars
(C) requires that purely technical problems be
solved before it can succeed
(D) will increase the total level of emissions rather
than reduce it
(E) will not produce a net reduction in
environmental degradation

Ans A what is wrong with E

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:11 am

DanaJ: Site Admin; Posts: 2567; Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 amFollowed by: 550 members; Thanked: 712 times; GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:48 am

I agree with the OA here. You basically have two ideas presented in the passage:
- supporters of the electrical car say the use of such vehicles will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions
- to produce the necessary electricity to power these cars you need to build more dams or use other types of polluting energy

So, while the environmentalists believe the cars are great, they underestimate the impact they will have on the environment. It's true we'll have lower emissions, but that doesn't mean they won't still have an impact on nature.

E is not necessarily true. There might be a net reduction for all we know: the pollution produced by power plants might be lower than the current car emissions, so overall you have less pollution. We only know that, while there will be no car emissions, there will be some (we're not told how much) pollution from plants.

pandeyvineet24: Legendary Member; Posts: 527; Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:14 am; Location: Atlanta; Thanked: 17 times

by pandeyvineet24 » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:21 am

DanaJ wrote:I agree with the OA here. You basically have two ideas presented in the passage:
- supporters of the electrical car say the use of such vehicles will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions
- to produce the necessary electricity to power these cars you need to build more dams or use other types of polluting energy

So, while the environmentalists believe the cars are great, they underestimate the impact they will have on the environment. It's true we'll have lower emissions, but that doesn't mean they won't still have an impact on nature.

E is not necessarily true. There might be a net reduction for all we know: the pollution produced by power plants might be lower than the current car emissions, so overall you have less pollution. We only know that, while there will be no car emissions, there will be some (we're not told how much) pollution from plants.

Picked E here as Well.
I thought A was too extreme and not 100% true . How can we be sure that the pollution from nuclear and power plants is less than from vehicles ?

Please explain.

gmatmachoman: Legendary Member; Posts: 2326; Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 amFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 173 times; GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:36 am

hehhhhee!! Picked E very promptly and later got dumped by cing the OA!!

E was just too enticing..culdnt resist Boss!!

DanaJ: Site Admin; Posts: 2567; Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 amFollowed by: 550 members; Thanked: 712 times; GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:55 am

pandeyvineet24 wrote: Picked E here as Well.
I thought A was too extreme and not 100% true . How can we be sure that the pollution from nuclear and power plants is less than from vehicles ?

Please explain.

The fact is, we can't know for sure. This is why E is incorrect. You don't know if the damage caused by the power plants will be more than the damage caused by non-electric cars. The absence of a net reduction in environmental damage (i.e. option E) means that the power plants will cause more damage than current cars, but we can't really say for sure.

The deal with A is that it doesn't discuss the amount of pollution caused by power plants or by current cars. It just states that environmentalists are wrong when they assume that electric cars will eliminate car-related emissions: they will probably be reduced, but that doesn't mean that there will be ABSOLUTELY NO emissions.

heshamelaziry: Legendary Member; Posts: 869; Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pmFollowed by: 3 members; Location: California; Thanked: 13 times

by heshamelaziry » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:47 am

DanaJ wrote:
pandeyvineet24 wrote: Picked E here as Well.
I thought A was too extreme and not 100% true . How can we be sure that the pollution from nuclear and power plants is less than from vehicles ?

Please explain.
The fact is, we can't know for sure. This is why E is incorrect. You don't know if the damage caused by the power plants will be more than the damage caused by non-electric cars. The absence of a net reduction in environmental damage (i.e. option E) means that the power plants will cause more damage than current cars, but we can't really say for sure.

The deal with A is that it doesn't discuss the amount of pollution caused by power plants or by current cars. It just states that environmentalists are wrong when they assume that electric cars will eliminate car-related emissions: they will probably be reduced, but that doesn't mean that there will be ABSOLUTELY NO emissions.

You are stating what is mentioned in A. Taking A shows that emmisions will hurt the environment more than other factors, which we can not judge based on the stimulus.

I still would have chosen E on the test. It is general and does not imply emotional and extreme judgment based on insufficient information as A does.

ershovici: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 91; Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:50 am; Location: Washington DC; Thanked: 2 times; GMAT Score:600

by ershovici » Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:52 pm

The logic formula for this answer is - if X then Y will happen, but unless Z happen Y could not happen.

Guys just think about the following:
In the statement we have - will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by
auto emissions - which is followed by "But unless we dam more rivers"

So we shoul refute the statement, and the best one is " will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation "So E is right answer.

khanshainur: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 300; Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Mon May 16, 2016 12:06 am

Looking at it now, E makes sense

GMAT Course Reviews

563 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (563 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review