In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States automobile industry argued that meeting the act's standards for...

Irina July 24, 2019

@Julie,

This is a strengthen question, but note that we are looking for a statement that would support the automakers' position NOT the author's argument. Let's briefly look at the argument.

Auto-industry argued that the 1970 CAA emission standards were neither economically feasible nor environmentally efficiency. Catalytic converter, invented in 1967, enabled automakers to meet the 1970 standards efficiency.

The author uses these facts to demonstrate that the auto industry's claims were false.

Currently, automakers are lobbying against the legislation that would tighten emissions restrictions because these restrictions would be overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution. The automobile industry's position should not be heeded.

The author then assumes that their current claims are similarly false and should be rejected.

What statement would support the automakers' claim that additional emissions restrictions would be unduly expensive and unnecessary?

Let's look at the answer choices.

(A) hits the nail on the head. The 1967 catalytic converter technology might have been sufficient to meet 1970 emission standards, but the more stringent the standards become, the harder it is to provide the required technology economically;

(B) is irrelevant. The fact that emissions-restriction technology can be engineering so as to avoid reducing fuel efficiency has no impact on the automakers' claim, it provides no information on either the cost of any advanced emissions-restriction technology or the necessity;

(C) is incorrect because it actually weakens the automakers' claim. If it is not necessary to introduce new technology to comply with the new more stringent emission standards, than they cannot argue that it is overly expensive;

(D) is irrelevant. We have no information if there are, in fact, more automobiles on the road. Even if you presume that this is true based on real-world facts, which you should not do on the LSAT, then this answer choice would weaken the automakers' claim, making a strong argument for more stringent regulations to combat air pollution;

(E) is irrelevant. This fact has no impact on the automakers' position because it is neither about the cost of the compliance nor about necessity.

Let me know if this helps and if you have any other questions.