The auto industry executive is trying to back her resolution that she is opposed to the recent guidelines that would require the auto industry to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency because statistics show that cars that were built smaller after 1977 for the purpose of becoming more fuel efficient had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier, larger counterparts.
We are looking for the answer choice that would most weaken the executive's argument.
Answer choice (C) states: "New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines."
So the executive opposes building smaller cars for the purpose of making them more fuel efficient to meet the new guidelines because they had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did earlier, larger counterparts.
However, if new computerized fuel systems allow large cars, which the executive apparently doesn't take issue with and which have a lower incident of accident-related fatalities than smaller cars, to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines, then the executive no longer can oppose being required to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency since they can just make large cars meet the guidelines.
Thus, answer choice (C) constitutes the strongest objection to the executive's argument.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
YivillarMarch 2, 2015
Thank you.
CeciOctober 10, 2018
why not B?
AnitaOctober 10, 2018
@Ceci B would be suggesting that even with fewer crashes, the smaller automobiles are so dangerous that there has still been an increase in fatalities. This seems like a difficult argument to make in favor of small or fuel-efficient cars!
C works better by suggesting we no longer need to make small, dangerous cars because technology has evolved. This is a much stronger argument.
BoramJanuary 8, 2019
Going back to the explanation for C, it says "if new computerized fuel systems allow large cars, which the executive apparently doesn't take issue with and which have a lower incident of accident-related fatalities than smaller cars." How can I know that larger cars have a lower incident of accident-related fatalities than smaller cars? Is it because they're larger cars?
RaviJanuary 13, 2019
@Boram,
Great question. We know that the larger cars have lower incidences of accident-related fatalities than smaller cars because of the first sentence of the stimulus, where the auto executive states, "cars that were built smaller after 1977 to make them more fuel-efficient had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier, larger counterparts." If the smaller cars have a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities, then the larger cars by definition must have a lower incidence of accident-related fatalities.
Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!
BrookeMagJanuary 4, 2020
Does this question use cause and effect as a form of reasoning? How do you decipher when to use cause and effect and when to not?
