(B) says, "Most of the products purchased in response to direct-mail advertisements would be purchased even without the direct-mail advertisements."
If people are buying items that they would be purchasing even without the direct-mail advertisements, then the fact that direct-mail advertisements would save these people trips to the store (causing them to use less gasoline) is a relevant detail. Thus, (B) strengthens the argument.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
Hannah-AndersonSeptember 25, 2019
@Ravi how can we assume that these items, which people were planning on purchasing anyway, would have required a trip to the store? I don't see how this answer suggest a change in consumption patterns in a way that necessarily is more environmentally-friendly.
SamASeptember 26, 2019
Hello @Hannah-Anderson,
According to the passage, we are talking specifically about products "whose purchase would otherwise require the use of a car." We don't have to assume that these products require a trip to the store, because that information is already given to us.
