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

Redeem

clean air act

Expert replies
by jeevan.Gk » Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:21 am
In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States automobile industry argued that meeting the act’s standards for automobile emissions was neither economically feasible nor environmentally necessary. However, the catalytic converter, invented in 1967, enabled automakers to meet the 1970 standards efficiently. Currently, automakers are lobbying against the government’s attempt to pass legislation that would tighten restrictions on automobile emissions. The automakers contend that these new restrictions would be overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution. Clearly, the automobile industry’s position should not be heeded.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the method used to counter the automakers’ current position?

(A) The automakers’ premises are shown to lead to a contradiction.
(B) Facts are mentioned that show that the automakers are relying on false information.
(C) A flaw is pointed out in the reasoning used by the automakers to reach their conclusion.
(D) A comparison is drawn between the automakers’ current position and a position they held in the past.
(E) Evidence is provided that the new emissions legislation is both economically feasible and environmentally necessary.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by bmlaud » Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:52 am
IMO E, not sure though

The automakers contend that these new restrictions would be overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution.

Evidence is provided that the new emissions legislation is both economically feasible and environmentally necessary.
Join the discussion

by Karen » Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:16 pm
Let's look at exactly how the argument tackles the automakers' current position. After telling a story about the past, the argument says only this much:
Currently, automakers are lobbying against the government’s attempt to pass legislation that would tighten restrictions on automobile emissions. The automakers contend that these new restrictions would be overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution. Clearly, the automobile industry’s position should not be heeded.


There's almost nothing there. It just gives their position and says they're wrong, boom.
Did it point out a contradiction? No.
Did it show they're relying on false information? No.
Did it point out a flaw in the reasoning? No.
Did it make a comparison with a position they took in the past? Implicitly, yes. The whole first half was setting that up.
Did it provide any evidence? No.

So it's D.
Karen van Hoek, PhD
Verbal Specialist

Test Prep New York
maximize your score, minimize your stress
www.testprepny.com
[email protected]
Join the discussion

by Bidisha800 » Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:48 pm
Argument says what happened in 1970 should happen again and auto industry protested in 1970 and they are protesting and Govt didn't listen to them in 1970 and it should not listen to them now.

(D)
Drill baby drill !

GMATPowerPrep Test1= 740
GMATPowerPrep Test2= 760
Kaplan Diagnostic Test= 700
Kaplan Test1=600
Kalplan Test2=670
Kalplan Test3=570
Join the discussion

by mason77 » Sat May 14, 2016 12:46 am
I also with option D
Join the discussion