In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States automobile industry argued that meeting the act's standards for...
zacdon81February 4, 2020
Why is (A) Incorrect? And why is (D) correct?
From what I am gathering, the old position and the new position are very similar. "Neither economically feasible nor environmentally necessary" equals "overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution." Answer choice (D) says there is a comparison. Is the comparison that they are the same? I chose (A) because "the catalytic converter, invented in 1967, enabled automakers to meet the 1970 standards efficiently" showed that it met the standards so there was a problem with their argument. Thanks for your help!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
A. The automakers' premises are shown to lead to a contradiction.
What are the premises in question? You are correct that they were the same in 1970 as they are today.
1. Meeting the environmental standards is not economically feasible. 2. The standards are not environmentally necessary.
The problem is not that these two premises lead to a contradiction. These things could both be true. The catalytic converter did eliminate premise 1, but this does not mean that the two premises are contradictory.
The comparison is between the 1970 Clean Air Act and the new restrictions on emissions.The author is saying that the automakers were wrong in 1970, so they are wrong today. This is a flawed argument, but they are not asking for the flaw. This is a method of reasoning question. The author is comparing the automakers' current position to the one they held in 1970. This method is best expressed by D.
Ashley-Tien-2June 20, 2021
Is there anyway I could delete the data from the practice questions? Seeing my answers is skewing everything
