Critical Reasoning

Older United States automobiles have been identified as contributing disproportionately to global air pollution. The requirement in many jurisdictions that automobiles pass emission-control inspections has had the effect of taking many such automobiles out of service in the United States, as they fail inspection and their owners opt to buy newer automobiles. Thus the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?



(A) It is impossible to separate the air of one country or jurisdiction from that of others.

(B) When automobiles that are now new become older, they will, because of a design change, cause less air pollution than older automobiles do now.

(C) There is a thriving market for used older Untied States automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.

(D) The number of jurisdictions in the United States requiring automobiles to pass emission-control inspections is no longer increasing.

(E) Even if all the older automobiles in the United States were retired from service, air pollution from United States automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly.

OA after discussion

Thus the burden of pollution such older United States automobiles contribute to the globalatmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.

Global is the key word in this CR. If these older cars are just moved to some other part of the world where there is no emission control, then these automobiles will continue to contribute to the pollution of the global atmosphere.

I go with C

Agree with @dmateer25. IMO - C

OA : C

It seems to me that the right answer is C