QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument
CONCLUSION: The electric car causes some pollution. [This was my prephrase before doing the answers]
REASONING: Electric cars won’t burn gas, but their electricity will have to come from dams, coal or nuclear. Each method causes environmental damage.
ANALYSIS: The author has shown that electric cars will cause more environmental damage than people are expecting. Proponents are expecting electric cars not to pollute, but all of the replacement electricity methods cause some damage.
Electric cars might still be an environmental win. It’s possible that car exhaust causes, say, 100 units of environmental damage, whereas the replacement methods will cause only 40 units of damage.
In that case, it makes sense to switch to electric cars, even though the pollution is greater than you might have thought. Pollution won’t be zero, but it will be down. People will still have overestimated their benefits though.
- CORRECT. This matches. Proponents are overlooking the pollution required to generate electricity, and so the consequences will be worse than expected.
- The author doesn’t say anything about what makes a car popular.
- The electric car might succeed despite the fact that its electricity pollutes. See the analysis above. The electric car might cause less pollution than gas cars, and so we might switch.
- This isn’t supported. The author has shown that there will be some pollution. But that doesn’t mean that there will be more pollution.
Also, this answer refers to more emissions. Normal cars cause emissions, but a nuclear plant might do its damage through radiation poisoning, not emissions.
- Similar to D. The author has shown that there will be some pollution. But that doesn’t mean that there will be more pollution.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions