BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

ethanol

Expert replies
by orel » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:33 am
Ethanol is a derivative of corn and other grains. When burned as fuel, it emits significantly lower levels of carbon monoxide, a major atmospheric pollutant, than does gasoline. For that reason, environmentalists claim that ethanol is a better source of energy than gasoline.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the environmentalists' claim?
a. When burned as fuel, ethanol does not release any pollutants at higher levels than does gasoline.
b. Ethanol is comparable in price to gasoline.
c. Available supplies of corn are sufficient to supply several years' worth of ethanol.
d. Most gasoline companies already possess the technology to produce ethanol.
e. Ethanol can be used as heating fuel.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by mikeCoolBoy » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:21 am
IMO A
Join the discussion

by sasen » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:36 am
IMO B since environmentalists are already convinced about the ecological benefits of ethanol and are really not bothered about other pollutants hence A is eliminated.
If ethanol is lets say 20 times more expensive than gasolilne,will it be considered as an alternate? i doubt so B
Join the discussion

by nitya34 » Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:50 am
A is too extreme as it says"... does not release any pollutants"
hence B or D
IMO D
Join the discussion

by typhoonguywlblwu » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:41 am
IMO A because although ethanol produces less cabon monoxide,it could still pollute more than other available fuel sources if it contains any other pollutants.A closes the hole

a. When burned as fuel, ethanol does not release any pollutants at higher levels than does gasoline.
b. Ethanol is comparable in price to gasoline.- pollution not price is the consideration

c. Available supplies of corn are sufficient to supply several years' worth of ethanol. out of scope as if there are not enough supplies of corn,It can be harvested more if required.

d. Most gasoline companies already possess the technology to produce - ethanol. - if the technogy is not widely avaiable,it could be made avaiable in the future - out of scope

e. Ethanol can be used as heating fuel.- out of scope.the ques is not about ethanol as a fuel used for heating
Join the discussion

by ketkoag » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:50 am
A is the right answer as it says about the other pollutants as well. hence supports the argument.
other answer choices are irrelevant.
Join the discussion

by krisraam » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:47 pm
My Answer is A.

All other choices are irrelevant.

Thanks
Raama
Join the discussion

by yeloaw » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:13 pm
IMO C
Join the discussion

by 4seasoncentre » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:33 pm
IMO A.

the scope the environmentalists' argument is that ethanol is less polluting, not that it is generally better than gas.

As a side note, ethanol really isn't all that great because it requires lots of energy (from oil) to create, and uses valuable farm land that drives up the price of crops.
Join the discussion

by gmat740 » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:52 pm
Conclusion
ethanol is a better source of energy than gasoline.
Reason:
it emits significantly lower levels of carbon monoxide, a major atmospheric pollutant
b. Ethanol is comparable in price to gasoline.
Price= out of scope
c. Available supplies of corn are sufficient to supply several years' worth of ethanol
Concerned point is Pollutants and not supplies
d. Most gasoline companies already possess the technology to produce ethanol.
e. Ethanol can be used as heating fuel.
Again both out of scope

only A discusses about Pollutants. although not the best answer because of extreme word as pointed out in the previous post. But still A is best among the given choices

Hope this Helps
Join the discussion

by ashley.com » Sun May 15, 2016 4:19 am
It seems to me that the right answer is A
Join the discussion