Critical Reasoning

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.

Please provide your explanations.

IMO - D

A comparison is drawn between the automakers’ current position and a position they held in the past.

In 1970 the automakers argued that the act's standards were neither economically feasible nor environmentally necessary...catalytic converter, 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...so.....the automobile industry’s position should not be heeded.

What's the OA?

OA please?

OA?
Sharing OA is a good practise!

This one is D, but it's come up before because whatever (unreliable) test this is from gives the answer (incorrectly) as B.

(B) is incorrect because we don't KNOW the automakers are currently relying on false information. When the automakers opposed the 1970 Clean Air Act and said that meeting the act's standards was not economically feasible, they were clearly wrong: the 1967 catalytic converter enabled them to meet the standards efficiently. Whether the automakers were lying or ignorant at the time is irrelevant, however, because they might be telling the truth NOW: perhaps it is "overly expensive" to curb air pollution. We don't even know what information they're relying on at all; how could we possibly say that it's false?

(D) is right. The argument implies that the automakers used this same excuse last time and turned out to be wrong (and possibly dishonest), so we ought to be skeptical of that same excuse this time.