9. IMO -- Ethephoenix wrote:lsat strenghtening and assumption
) Well none of the answer choices are even near to strengthen the argument. However, here is my stake.thephoenix wrote:As per the set the OA for second one is B
any views !!!
I dont agree with this explanation.. Still have a doubt as to why B... any other takers who can explain better..lkm wrote:Well none of the answer choices are even near to strengthen the argument. However, here is my stake.thephoenix wrote:As per the set the OA for second one is B
any views !!!
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the arguement?
A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will not be fewer vehicles on the road as a result.
No idea.
B) Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is, the more nonmoving running vehicles there are
If people choose to walk over ride, then there will be less vehicles on the road and it leads to less congestion or may be no congestion.
THOUGH IT'S NOT SUPPORTING DIRECTLY AND REQUIRES ASSUMPTION, BUT SOME HOW IT'S NEITHER OUT OF SCOPE NOR WEAKENING THE ARGUMENT.
C) Since different vehicles can pollute at diffferent rates, it is possible for one driver who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.
Out of scope. So what if the vehicles pollute at different rate. This choice can strengthen the argument if it state that more drives whose vehicles are polluting more, have decided to walk.
D) On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.
Out of Scope. Talking about cars and buses only.
E) Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive might themselves decide to drive.
Weakening statement
Any reason for disagreement. I would like to discuss.Shawshank wrote:
I dont agree with this explanation.. Still have a doubt as to why B... any other takers who can explain better..
Phoenix.. u sure,,, OA -- B
By extending it little bit more you get the below cause -effect."If people choose to walk over ride, then there will be less vehicles on the road and it leads to less congestion or may be no congestion."
But, congestion can happen due to some accident, not necessarily be fewer vehicles. What do you say?if there are fewer vehicles on the road, there will be less congestion.
Himadhukumar_v wrote:Based on what lkm said:By extending it little bit more you get the below cause -effect."If people choose to walk over ride, then there will be less vehicles on the road and it leads to less congestion or may be no congestion."
Less vehicles means less congestion and less congestion means fewer non moving vehicles and fewer non-moving vehicles means less pollution.
Less Vehicles -> Less Congestion -> Fewer Non Moving vehicles -> Less Pollution (Supports the main arg)
But lkm, there is an assumption you are making in the above explanation, that is:
But, congestion can happen due to some accident, not necessarily be fewer vehicles. What do you say?if there are fewer vehicles on the road, there will be less congestion.
