Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes to serious environmental problems. But the cost ...

Mehran on October 25, 2018

Hi @smilde11, thanks for your post. This stimulus consists of an argument. The environmentalist puts forward the following premises: (1) pollution from gas burned by cars contributes to serious environmental problems; (2) the cost of these problems is not reflected in gasoline prices, so (3) the cost of these problems usually does not affect consumers' decisions about how much to drive. (4) Since heavier taxes on gasoline would reflect this cost - > CONCLUSION: consumers would pollute less.

The question stem asks you to identify the answer choice that is textually supported by this stimulus. Answer choice (C) is correct: it says that "if the cost of the environmental problems to which pollution from driving contributes were fully reflected in the price of gasoline," consumers would drive less and pollute less. Why? Implicitly, because they would purchase less gasoline (because the cost of the gasoline would more accurately reflect the environmental cost of driving).

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

xDaltonLaney on October 22, 2019

Why is D incorrect?

Meredith on September 19, 2020

I'm also curious what exactly about D makes it incorrect

griffincarlson on September 26, 2020

The problem with D is the language "the only cost." The passage does not support the idea that the only cost considered by most consumers is gasoline prices. It is just one piece of the puzzle. It could be the case that most consumers don't factor in pollution and its cost into their rationale but they DO consider other costs like the cost of getting pulled, car maintenance, accidents, etc. So the passage can not strongly support the idea that the "only cost" considered by most consumers is gasoline prices when deciding to drive.