Emissions from

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 17 times

Emissions from

by madhur_ahuja » Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:22 pm
Emissions from automobiles that burn gasoline and automobiles that burn diesel fuel are threatening the quality of life on our planet, contaminating both urban air and global atmosphere. Therefore, the only effective way to reduce such emissions is to replace the conventional diesel fuel and gasoline used in automobiles with cleaner-burning fuels, such as methanol, that create fewer emissions.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Reducing the use of automobiles would not be a more effective means to reduce automobile emissions than the use of methanol.

(B) There is no fuel other than methanol that is cleaner-burning than both diesel fuel and gasoline.

(C) If given a choice of automobile fuels, automobile owners would not select gasoline over methanol.

(D) Automobile emissions constitute the most serious threat to the global environment.

(E) At any given time there is a direct correlation between the level of urban air pollution and the level of contamination present in the global atmosphere
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:14 am
Thanked: 2 times

by Spring2009 » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:29 pm
I am thinking between A and B. But my final choice is A.
If we can reduce the use of automobiles, emissions can be reduced without a need to use methanol. (A) eliminates this.

(B) Methanol is just an example of cleaner burning fuels, so we can't suppose that there is no fuel other than methanol.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:18 pm
Location: Chicago
Thanked: 8 times

by riteshbindal » Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:40 am
Actually all are pretty confusing :) But somehow I feel to go with E.
OA pls

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Rourkela/Hyderabad
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by sanp_l » Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:23 am
The context is to reduce contamination by reducing usage of diesel and gasoline.

None of the options other than A are an assumption here.
They are either information from the passage or are a questionable statement failing to be an assumption within the specified context.

A suits perfectly. The way suggested is to go for other types of cleaner fuels discarding the casual assumption that usage of automobiles isnt viable.
Sandy

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:50 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by ogbeni » Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:51 am
yep, I'm with the A-Train.. If you negate it, the argument falls apart

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:28 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by arorag » Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:23 am
Key is "ONLY" mentioned in questions.....Only A make sense

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

by pandeyvineet24 » Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:07 am
Stuck between A and B, chose B
I think B is a better choice than A, because argument talks about the use of a cleaner fuel and B says that there is no cleaner fuel than Methanol

Please explain the reason for rejecting B.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 2:47 am
Thanked: 12 times

Re: Emissions from

by shahdevine » Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:39 am
madhur_ahuja wrote:Emissions from automobiles that burn gasoline and automobiles that burn diesel fuel are threatening the quality of life on our planet, contaminating both urban air and global atmosphere. Therefore, the only effective way to reduce such emissions is to replace the conventional diesel fuel and gasoline used in automobiles with cleaner-burning fuels, such as methanol, that create fewer emissions.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Reducing the use of automobiles would not be a more effective means to reduce automobile emissions than the use of methanol.

(B) There is no fuel other than methanol that is cleaner-burning than both diesel fuel and gasoline.

(C) If given a choice of automobile fuels, automobile owners would not select gasoline over methanol.

(D) Automobile emissions constitute the most serious threat to the global environment.

(E) At any given time there is a direct correlation between the level of urban air pollution and the level of contamination present in the global atmosphere
OA is A.
This is a false cause argument that hinges on cleaner burning fuels as the only effective way to reduce emissions. The assumption is that there are no alternative paths, such as actually reducing automobile usage, to the same end. Ergo, A is answer.

E...almost got me but that's not what's binding the argument.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Emissions from

by BlindVision » Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:39 am
madhur_ahuja wrote:Emissions from automobiles that burn gasoline and automobiles that burn diesel fuel are threatening the quality of life on our planet, contaminating both urban air and global atmosphere. Therefore, the only effective way to reduce such emissions is to replace the conventional diesel fuel and gasoline used in automobiles with cleaner-burning fuels, such as methanol, that create fewer emissions.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Reducing the use of automobiles would not be a more effective means to reduce automobile emissions than the use of methanol.

(B) There is no fuel other than methanol that is cleaner-burning than both diesel fuel and gasoline.

(C) If given a choice of automobile fuels, automobile owners would not select gasoline over methanol.

(D) Automobile emissions constitute the most serious threat to the global environment.

(E) At any given time there is a direct correlation between the level of urban air pollution and the level of contamination present in the global atmosphere
Choice B

Decided between the obvious, A & B -- BOTH mention methanol as the solution.

A) Has Reducing the use of automobiles , however, the argument does not mention anything about reducing the use of automobiles.

B) There is no fuel other than methanol is parallel to Therefore, the only effective way in the argument.

Choice B
Life is a Test

Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:06 pm
IMO - B

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 6 times
GMAT Score:600

by viju9162 » Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:55 pm
The word "only" talks about replacing the fuel.. hence, i will go with B
"Native of" is used for a individual while "Native to" is used for a large group

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:06 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by perfectstranger » Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am
I think B is the answer could you provide OA ? Madhur Ajaha
Please do not post answers visibly . Please hide them or post them later after the discussion.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:03 pm
Thanked: 5 times

Emissions from

by pre-gmat » Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:05 am
A should be the one.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:48 am
GMAT Score:730

by rainmaker » Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:36 am
A is correct

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:54 pm
Location: Hyderabad

by Gopi » Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:24 am
My Choice is B