#14 - Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True-CE. The correct answer choice is (C)

Here, the environmentalist argues that consumers (i.e., people who drive cars) would pollute less if gasoline were taxed sufficiently to reflect the costs of the environmental problems caused by the gasoline burned when they drive their cars.

The question stem identifies this as a Must Be True question. This is a somewhat unusual Must Be True question because the stimulus contains an argument, rather than just a fact set. When a Must Be True stimulus contains an argument, the correct answer choice typically describes a necessary assumption made by the argument, similar to the function of the correct answer choice in an Assumption question. Here, the question stem is not quite so strong, in that it asks for what is most strongly supported by the argument. So, the correct answer choice may be a necessary assumption of the argument or it could be something close to a necessary assumption.

In this case, the conclusion is that the consumers would pollute less. If they pollute less, then it must be the case that they burn less gasoline. So, our prephrase is that the environmentalist assumes that the consumers would burn less gasoline if gasoline were taxed more heavily.

Answer choice (A): The conclusion in the stimulus is not a statement about what should or should not occur. Instead it is a prediction about what would occur. So, this answer choice about what should happen is irrelevant to the conclusion.

Answer choice (B): Here, the answer choice imposes an unnecessary burden on the environmentalist’s argument. For the argument to be true, it is not necessary that the consumers become more aware of the environmental problems created by burning gasoline. Rather, they simply have to burn less gasoline, regardless of their environmental awareness.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice because it states an assumption of the argument. If the environmentalist’s conclusion is true, then it must be the case that consumers would burn less gasoline. While this answer choice goes a bit beyond what is strictly necessary, a clear assumption made by the author is that the higher price of gasoline would induce consumers to purchase less gasoline.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is too strongly worded. It is not required that the only cost considered by most consumers is the cost of gasoline. Rather the argument takes for granted that consumers would be affected enough by the increased cost of gasoline to change their driving habits.

Answer choice (E): The argument does not require increased consideration by consumers for any reduction in the amount of pollution caused by gasoline burned by cars. For example, the argument does not preclude some technological innovation that might lead to less pollution being emitted from the same level of gasoline usage.

[Jkjones3789]

Hello , so in this Must question I was really having difficulty picking between B and C. They seem to be saying the exact same thing to me. Please can you explain to me why the answer is C and not B. I feel like they are both right

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Jkjones,

B doesn't really follow from the stimulus; B is saying that the taxes would make consumers think about pollution problems more, but that's a big leap from the stimulus, which is really only saying that it would make consumers pollute less, not that it would make them think about that pollution more.

C, on the other hand, is saying that consumers would buy less gas if the taxes were raised, which is supported by the conclusion that they would pollute less (presumably by reducing the amount of gasoline burned by cars).

I hope that helps!

[nrpandolfo]

Hi,

I correctly chose this answer as C as it made the most sense, but could there be an argument for D as well? i.e if the cost of gasoline is going up, what if other costs related to driving were going down (such as buying a car in the first place), so maybe even if gasoline went up, more people would still be driving? therefore, consumers would still be polluting more

[Alex Bodaken]

nrpandolfo,

Thanks for the question! Let me see if I can help.

Nice job getting this one correct. The reason answer choice (D) ends up being wrong hinges on the word "only." Answer choice (D) reads: The only cost considered by most consumers when they are deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline. But the stimulus doesn't necessarily support the idea that the price of gasoline is the only driver of consumer decision-making...there could be other things that the author doesn't mention. The stimulus supports the idea that the price of gasoline is the primary means by which drivers decide how much to drive, but not the idea that it is the only tool they use to decide how much to drive.

Hope that helps!
Alex

[Rosaline]

Could someone please explain why D is wrong?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Rosaline,

Great question!

Answer choice (D) does raise an issue discussed in the stimulus: the connection between consumer's decisions about how much to drive and gasoline cost. The stimulus also suggests that if the price of gasoline were higher, consumers would choose to drive less.

However, there is a problem with (D): we do not know from the stimulus whether the "only" cost considered by consumers when deciding how much to drive is the cost of gasoline. While we know that the cost of gasoline is a factor, there might be other factors consumers think about too (e.g. availability of mass transit, cost of motor vehicle insurance, opportunities to carpool, etc.). Since the stimulus does not rule out other possibilities, we can't either.

On Must Be True problems we must be very precise. The only information available to use is that which is contained in the stimulus. Watch out for extreme language like "only," "always," "never," "the best," "every," etc. Extreme statements require extremely strong support.

Does this help? Thanks for the question!

[T.B.Justin]

I think the author makes some correlations perhaps causal; pollution from gasoline powered cars contributing to serious environmental problems, to which the cost of those problems is not apparent in gasoline prices.

Therefore, usually does not affect consumer decision on the amount of driving they do.

Increased taxation on gas would reflect the cost of those serious environmental problems and as a result consumers would pollute less.

I think there is an assumption that consumers must decrease the amount of their driving, but I understand this a “must be true” question stem with a lesser degree of required certainty.


I thought that there must not be any other reason for consumers to decide on the amount they drive other than, the cost of gasoline. I was thinking causality.


How can the inference be made for, on average, if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline, consumers would purchase less gasoline; with what the stimulus states couldn’t it be inferred with the same or more support that they purchase the same quantity of gasoline and drive less.

[Charlie Melman]

Hi Justin,

As you note, the question stem here doesn't require you to be 100% certain that the right answer is logically airtight. There can be a little bit of play in the joints, so to speak.

The environmentalist is saying that heavier taxes on gasoline will cause people to pollute less. Why? Because consumers would have to consider those prices when thinking about how much to drive. We know from the stimulus that consumers don't currently do this. So the question then is, "In which direction will consumers' gasoline consumption move once they're forced to consider higher gasoline prices? Up or down?"

Well, if we assume that the environmentalist's conclusion is true—as the question stem tells us we must—and the end result will be consumers polluting less, then we can safely assume that the direction will be down. In other words, people will purchase less gasoline. We can make this assumption because the environmentalist says that gasoline causes pollution.

I understand your alternative inference, but there are a couple issues with it. First, we know from the stimulus that price affects driving decisions. So it's more likely that an increase in price will lead to less driving than the same amount of driving. Second, this is a most strongly supported question, so even if that was clearly expressed in an answer choice, answer choice (C) would be on firmer ground, and would thus be correct.

Hope this helps!

[Leela]

If this were a strengthen question, would D have been a good answer? It seems to me that what separates it from C is that it's too strong using the word "only." However, this type of language is usually great for strengthen answer choices.