It is hard to find a politician_Veritas

[conquistador]

It is hard to find a politician who doesn't have some sort of plan for energy independence, but we will never see true independence from foreign sources of energy without making the kind of sacrifices that elected officials are loath to mention. For example, virtually every politician campaigning for national office touts biofuels, especially ethanol, as a solution to our nation's energy dependence. However, the actual energy that can be harvested from these sources is miniscule compared to our current level of consumption-about 20 million barrels of oil and gasoline per day.

We need to take serious, even drastic, steps now. Nuclear fuel, despite all its promise, is understandably controversial, and the problem of dealing with radioactive waste will not go away anytime soon. We might find an acceptable method of drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Alaskan wilderness, but this too will take some time, and will only take us so far down the road to energy independence.

Thus, it is the level of consumption, rather than our sources of energy, that needs to change; putting our resources into developing alternative energy sources will only obscure this unavoidable fact. One way policymakers might affect the level of energy consumption is by increasing taxes on gasoline. In accordance with the principles of a free-market economy, such as that of our own nation, if the price of gasoline were to double due to the addition of such taxes, oil consumption would drop by 3 to 5 million barrels per day.

We also need to overhaul the way in which we move goods around the country. Using gas-guzzling trucks for cross-country trips is extremely inefficient. Moving away from the use of trucks for long-haul trips will require significant governmental and private investment in new water transport and electric railway infrastructure. Once this infrastructure is in place, however, these methods of shipping will be much more energy efficient for all but local transportation of goods.

These and other real solutions to our energy dependence issues will be unpopular in many quarters. Car and truck manufacturers will use their considerable political muscle to fight not only significant gas tax hikes, but also stringent fuel efficiency requirements on vehicles. The move away from trucking will be resisted by both the "big-box" retail outlets, which depend on trucks for the delivery of goods, and by the trucking industry itself. The farming industry will do everything it can to push for the widespread use of ethanol and other plant-based fuels. But it is consumer resistance that most needs to be overcome. Too many of us believe that the guarantee of cheap fuel is an inalienable right, and balk at funding public transportation.

Recently, there has been a gradual change in attitude as people start to connect their daily habits with larger environmental concerns. Until enough of us make that connection and are willing to make a few lifestyle changes accordingly, we have no business complaining about our energy dependence on other countries.

It can be inferred that the author believes that a tax increase on gasoline _______.

A. is not feasible because politicians do not understand the issue enough to call for such a raise
B. will limit the transporting of goods by "big-box" retail outlets
C. will reduce our annual consumption by approximately 4 million gallons
D. will only be possible after improvements have been made in automobile fuel efficiency
E. will use the fundamentals of free-market economics to address the problem of energy dependence

OA E

Regarding the inf question,
the passage says

One way policymakers might affect the level of energy consumption is by increasing taxes on gasoline. In accordance with the principles of a free-market economy, such as that of our own nation, if the price of gasoline were to double due to the addition of such taxes, oil consumption would drop by 3 to 5 million barrels per day.

According to free market eco principles, usage will reduce to x barrels.
But nowhere it is mentioned that
A tax increase on gasoline will use the fundamentals of free-market economics to address the problem of energy dependence.
Then how can we infer Option E.
Also explain each option why it is wrong/right?

[DavidG@VeritasPrep]

According to free market eco principles, usage will reduce to x barrels.
But nowhere it is mentioned that
A tax increase on gasoline will use the fundamentals of free-market economics to address the problem of energy dependence.
Then how can we infer Option E.

It's important to read each paragraph in the context of the passage's broader theme. The first clause of the passage is "It is hard to find a politician who doesn't have some sort of plan for energy independence." So the passage is about the various ways one might reduce energy dependence.

First, in paragraph two, there's a discussion about methods that the author believes are unlikely to work, such as biofuels or nuclear fuel. But then, in paragraph three, we see that another way we might reduce our energy dependence is simply to use less energy. If the government raises taxes on gasoline, for example, free-market principles dictate that people would use less gas. If people use less gas, the thinking goes, it will reduce energy dependence. So while the phrase "reduce energy dependence" doesn't appear in this paragraph, it's implied, because this is what the entire passage is about. This is the idea captured in E.

[DavidG@VeritasPrep]

Also explain each option why it is wrong/right?

One by one:

A. is not feasible because politicians do not understand the issue enough to call for such a raise
This is never mentioned. Moreover, the author seems to think that a tax would be possible.

B. will limit the transporting of goods by "big-box" retail outlets
This is discussed in paragraph 5 in connection to a move away from trucking. Not relevant for a discussion about the tax hike in paragraph 3.

C. will reduce our annual consumption by approximately 4 million gallons
Tempting, but let's look closely at the last line in paragraph 3, "if the price of gasoline were to double due to the addition of such taxes, oil consumption would drop by 3 to 5 million barrels per day." Nowhere is the author actually calling for the gas price to double. This is one hypothetical example of how one specific tax increase might impact consumption. A tax of 10% or 20% would, presumably, have a much different impact on oil consumption.

D. will only be possible after improvements have been made in automobile fuel efficiency
This is never discussed in connection with a tax increase. Increasing fuel efficiency is a separate strategy.

E. will use the fundamentals of free-market economics to address the problem of energy dependence
Correct. The tax will reduce gas consumption, and reduced consumption is one of the strategies that the author has outlined to reduce energy dependence.