Critical Reasoning

parked= no exhaust

idling= exhaust

driving around= exhaust

We know there is a scarcity of parking spaces, and this scarcity results in the fact that buses emit exhaust while they are waiting. If E were false, i.e. (if no bus drivers drove around and instead idled by the curb), would the conclusion still make sense? Yes, certainly it would! The idling results in exhaust emissions, just as driving around does.

However, C strengthens the argument by countering a valid objection, which could be phrased as follows:

How can you claim that more parking spaces would lead to a significant reduction in exhaust? It may be that drivers spent only a few minutes of each several-hour visit actually idling by the curb. Eliminating the need to idle would lead to only a small reduction, not a significant one!

kevincanspain wrote:parked= no exhaust

idling= exhaust

driving around= exhaust

Kevin I am still unable to understand the option E here.....may I please request you to explain the option E in a different manner....I really dont understand where I am missing in my logic...

ssgmatter wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:parked= no exhaust

idling= exhaust

driving around= exhaust

Kevin I am still unable to understand the option E here.....may I please request you to explain the option E in a different manner....I really dont understand where I am missing in my logic...

Look above! Have you read the explanation in the official guide?

kevincanspain wrote:parked= no exhaust

idling= exhaust

driving around= exhaust

We know there is a scarcity of parking spaces, and this scarcity results in the fact that buses emit exhaust while they are waiting. If E were false, i.e. (if no bus drivers drove around and instead idled by the curb), would the conclusion still make sense? Yes, certainly it would! The idling results in exhaust emissions, just as driving around does.

However, C strengthens the argument by countering a valid objection, which could be phrased as follows:

How can you claim that more parking spaces would lead to a significant reduction in exhaust? It may be that drivers spent only a few minutes of each several-hour visit actually idling by the curb. Eliminating the need to idle would lead to only a small reduction, not a significant one!

Thankyou Kevin....I think I am clear on this one now.....a good learning that if stuck between two options in CR strengthen then nullify the options and the one that does not affect the conclusion of the argument is the correct option

I re-read the OG explanation for this question....However, I was getting the same thought process that since E says that most of the buses run in the city so parking should help.....but now i understand that E actually does not impact the conclusion but merely re-stating the evidence in different manner....

Thanks a zillion Kevin for your thoughts and analyis!....

I also have question on (E).

I can see that (C) seems better than (E), but if no (C), isn't (E) a kind of 'validate assumption to support'?

Thanks !

I also could not find any valid reason to eliminate E

Only the word 'some' can be a clue.