To reduce auto emissions

[vk_vinayak]

To reduce auto emissions, a well-known environmentalist governor proposed a daily "carbon footprint tax" on SUVs but not on cleaner subcompact ethanol-powered cars. This will cause many SUV owners to trade in their polluting vehicles for ethanol cars, the governor reasons, because the annual tax on SUVs is more than enough to buy a new ethanol car.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the governor's reasoning is flawed?

A Economists warn that Middle East instability will increase the cost of gasoline.

B It is already more expensive for most people to drive SUVs than ethanol cars because the price of gasoline is already high.

C Most ethanol car owners do not also own an SUV.

D Some drivers who love their SUVs say they would rather harm the environment than switch to ethanol cars.

E SUVs owned and driven by city residents make up 20% of the city's pollution, on average.

OA. Later

[confuse mind]

IMO - D

[ice_rush]

though strange answer choices, i'd go with [spoiler](B)[/spoiler].


what's the OA?

[vk_vinayak]

OA. B

[Bill@VeritasPrep]

Stimulus--The carbon footprint tax will cause people to trade in their SUV's for tax-exempt vehicles because the tax is enough to pay for a new car.

A--There is nothing about gas prices in the stimulus.

B--The stimulus relies on the idea that a financial disincentive (a tax big enough to buy a new car) will get people to move away from SUV's. If SUV's are already more expensive, then it could be argued that finances are not a primary consideration for SUV owners, in which case the new tax might not have the desired effect.

C--Irrelevant. The argument is about getting people to switch, not about people who already own both.

D--Some drivers may keep their SUV's, but it leaves open the possibility that a large proportion of SUV owners will switch.

E--Irrelevant to getting people to switch