#14 - Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Leela,

It's hard to consider what answer choices would work well as a strengthen answer here, because we don't really have an argument to strengthen. We have a set of facts, with no clear conclusion. If we think about an answer choice as strengthening the causal relationship where higher taxes on gasoline cause a decrease in driving, it still wouldn't strengthen much. We'd be better off looking for situations where higher taxes did cause a decrease in driving, eliminating an alternate cause, or otherwise affirming the causal relationship.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[lauriesnyder]

Hi,

I was between E and C and would like further clarity on why E is incorrect. I wasn't fully confident in my answer choice and want to better understand the difference between the two answer choices.

I think E was enticing to me because my prephrase/inference was that a connection needed to be made between the customer and the cost of the environmental problems due to pollution from gasoline, meaning I was looking for the answer that showed that if the customer knew of the environmental problems, pollution from gasoline would be reduced.

So, E kind of makes that connection, but is it incorrect because it doesn't say how they're giving it [the pollution] more consideration? Or is it the use of "only" as you mentioned above (but for answer D).

Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Laurie,

Yes, the "only if" phrasing in answer choice E is a major part of the problem with that answer. The stimulus lays out one pathway by which pollution from cars could be reduced: higher gasoline taxes affecting consumers' driving behavior. But there is no language in the stimulus suggesting that this is the only way such reductions could be achieved. Perhaps a locality could offer free public transportation to its residents, leading them to drive less and thus to less pollution from cars. The stimulus doesn't rule this possibility out, thus answer choice E is not supported.

There's another very subtle problem with answer choice E. In the stimulus, consumers don't necessarily have to be thinking about pollution at all to change their behavior. They only have to suffer the costs of higher taxes, leading them to drive less. Consumers' entire motivation under the scenario in the stimulus could be their own finances. In other words, they just don't want to have to pay more money to drive. Thus the stimulus scenario can function as the author states it without consumers ever giving consideration to the cost of "pollution" specifically.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy