LSAT CR Question

[topspin360]

Question -

Charles: During recessions unemployment typically rises. Thus, during a recession air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Darla: Why think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Question: Which one of the following most accurately describes how Darla's response is related to Charles' argument?
A) - It calls into question the truth of the premises that Charles uses to support his conclusion.
B) - It makes an additional claim that can be true only if Charles' conclusion is false.
C) - It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Charles' conclusion by his evidence.
D) - It argues that Charles' conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Charles gives to support that conclusion.
E) - It presents an argument showing that the premises in Charles' argument support an absurd conclusion that Charles has overlooked.


SPOILER ALERT++++++++++

C

My question is: how does Darla weakens the "support" given to Charles' conclusion? She merely just weakens the conclusion itself via another claim...

[Abhishek009]

Question -

Charles: During recessions unemployment typically rises. Thus, during a recession air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Darla: Why think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Question: Which one of the following most accurately describes how Darla's response is related to Charles' argument?
A) - It calls into question the truth of the premises that Charles uses to support his conclusion.
B) - It makes an additional claim that can be true only if Charles' conclusion is false.
C) - It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Charles' conclusion by his evidence.
D) - It argues that Charles' conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Charles gives to support that conclusion.
E) - It presents an argument showing that the premises in Charles' argument support an absurd conclusion that Charles has overlooked.


SPOILER ALERT++++++++++

C

My question is: how does Darla weakens the "support" given to Charles' conclusion? She merely just weakens the conclusion itself via another claim...

Charles -

Recession ---> More unemployment --------(Less use of Cars for travelling to job)------- Decrease in Pollution.

Darla


During a recession--------> Use of more old cars ----- (Old cars pollute more since people can't afford new ones , Which might not have happened with a new car)---------- Leading to higher pollution.


Darla , objects to Charles red highlighted part that less use of cars results in less polution with an counter argument , by presenting new information / new logic into the picture about the data that old cars pollute more than new cars.

Hence (C) seems better among the other choices...