Critical Reasoning

"Bio diesel is a fuel that can be used in most road vehicles instead of gasoline. Its use produces significantly less air pollution, Market research predicts that as this fuel becomes more widely available over the next ten years or so , hundreds of thousands of drivers will use it . We can only conclude , then, that many people care about reducing pollution. "

Just want to provide a different perspective here. Its the Market Research's prediction and not the survey of people who have explicitly agreed to use bio fuel in future. The research could be based on any thing such as based on other reports, costs analysis, availability, policy change. preference, new generation of auto cars etc. Hence rise in cost of bio fuel does not necessarily indicates that B supports argument/conclusion.

Any expert opinion?.

harshavardhanc wrote:

sumanr84 wrote:I too belong to A camp.

We are told to strengthen the conclusion - many people care about reducing pollution, only option A shows that people are conscious about pollution and so they prefer to reduce driving to cut pollution.

B, in fact, weakening the conclusion, in that its trying to focus the usage of Bio diesel by people mainly to save cost. People don't care about pollution but for cost and so they are using the Bio Diesel.

Q stem says - most strengthens this argument? Do u think something fishy here..argument or it should have been conclusion ?

Premise 1 : Bio diesel produces less pollution.
Premise 2 : research shows that many people will use it as it becomes widely available.
Conclusion: Many people care about reducing pollution.

Now imagine, despite being widely available, if bio diesel's price is more /gallon or /liter than gasoline and still, people are buying it. How will you justify the extra-spending ? They want their vehicles to pollute less.

which lends support to the conclusion :

=> many people who are buying bio-diesel care about reducing pollution.

nice explanation brother...good one

Bio diesel is a fuel that can be used in most road vehicles instead of gasoline. Its use produces significantly less air pollution, Market research predicts that as this fuel becomes more widely available over the next ten years or so , hundreds of thousands of drivers will use it . We can only conclude , then, that many people care about reducing pollution.

@vaivish

please see the part that I have highlighted. The author concludes only after believing in the research (proof : he is referring hundreds of thousands as many in his conclusion).Hence, we have to take the research finding as one of the premise.

I feel like taking a stab at this...

Let's assume the answer is choice 'A'. For these individuals, we can - at least, qualitatively - measure their interest in reducing pollution by the amount of driving they do. Their argument would be "since we drive less, there's less pollution". Whether they use gasoline or bio-diesel, their approach shouldn't change. They'd simply continue to minimize their driving. This certainly supports the argument that people care about reducing pollution. However, it's a constant - that is, their approach is independent of whether or not bio-diesel fuel is available in cars.

Now, suppose these same drivers continue to use gasoline when bio-diesel is available. Assuming everything else to be the same, the only reason they'd use gasoline is that it's less expensive than bio-diesel. This doesn't mean that they don't care about reducing pollution (they do care, per their minimal driving), but I would argue they don't care as much as the people who are willing to pay 10-20% more for bio-diesel. This, in my estimation, is the critical variable and, therefore, would most strengthen the argument.

tomada wrote:I feel like taking a stab at this...

Let's assume the answer is choice 'A'. For these individuals, we can - at least, qualitatively - measure their interest in reducing pollution by the amount of driving they do. Their argument would be "since we drive less, there's less pollution". Whether they use gasoline or bio-diesel, their approach shouldn't change. They'd simply continue to minimize their driving. This certainly supports the argument that people care about reducing pollution. However, it's a constant - that is, their approach is independent of whether or not bio-diesel fuel is available in cars.

Now, suppose these same drivers continue to use gasoline when bio-diesel is available. Assuming everything else to be the same, the only reason they'd use gasoline is that it's less expensive than bio-diesel. This doesn't mean that they don't care about reducing pollution (they do care, per their minimal driving), but I would argue they don't care as much as the people who are willing to pay 10-20% more for bio-diesel. This, in my estimation, is the critical variable and, therefore, would most strengthen the argument.

Of-course it is!

nice explanation!

Now the big question: what's the true answer?

tomada wrote:Now the big question: what's the true answer?

True Answer is B

Woo hoo! YES!