Technologically, it is already possible to produce nonpolluting cars that burn hydrogen rather than gasoline. But the...

Naz on September 3, 2015

The first sentence tells us that technically speaking, it is already possible to produce nonpolluting cars that burn hydrogen rather than gasoline. The only issue is that the fuel stations needed to provide this hydrogen do not exist yet. However, this is not an issue because the infrastructure will most likely appear and grow rapidly, since a century ago no fuel distribution infrastructure existed for gasoline-powered vehicles and yet it quickly developed in response to consumer demand.

The whole point of the argument was to explain that even though it seems like it is an issue that the national system of fuel stations required to provide hydrogen fuel for nonpolluting cars does not exist, this infrastructure will likely appear and grow. Every sentence in the passage helps support this idea. We are told that we are able to build these cars, and we know that a century ago similarly required infrastructure popped up quickly due to consumer demand, therefore, "the fuel-distribution infrastructure for hydrogen-powered cars is likely to appear and grow rapidly," i.e. answer choice (D).

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Milo-Hammer on August 4, 2019

But why is it not B

Ravi on August 4, 2019

@Milo-Hammer,

Let's take a look at (B).

(B) says, "The fuel-distribution infrastructure for hydrogen-powered
cars still needs to be created."

(B) is true, as the second sentence of the argument states it.
However, it isn't the conclusion of the argument because nothing in
the argument supports this sentence in any way, so it can't be the
conclusion.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!