Automobile Emissions

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:31 pm
Thanked: 3 times

Automobile Emissions

by gmatv09 » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:09 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: 399
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:48 am
Location: india
Thanked: 39 times

IMO

by xcusemeplz2009 » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:13 pm
IMO A
It does not matter how many times you get knocked down , but how many times you get up

Legendary Member
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:32 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by umaa » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:35 pm
IMO A.

All other choices cannot be assumptions.
What we think, we become

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:42 am
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:1 members

by hitmewithgmat » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:50 pm
IMO is A
(A)eliminates the possibility that people just reduced their amount of driving.
(A): If a reduction in automobile use were more effective than the switch in fuels, then the conclusion that cleaner-burning fuels are "the only effective way" of reducing emissions would fall apart.
Disclaimer-I am not a GMAT savvy yet, but I am learning everyday with my fellow beatthegmat citizens.

I AM DETERMINED TO CRASH/NIX OUT/ATTACK BRUTALLY/CRACK VERBAL PART OF GMAT. ROAR!

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:53 am
Can someone explain why E is incorrect

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:31 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by gmatv09 » Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:35 am
OA A


Answer E - Incorrect, because:
We know that both urban air and the global atmosphere are contaminated by cars, but the author does not indicate that there is a direct correlation between the two. This answer, when negated, has no effect on the
argument (and must therefore be incorrect)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:27 am

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 9:36 pm
I'd say E but I'm afraid more because of my intuition than any logic.