The question stem asks us what method the author uses to counter the automakers' current position?
Well, what is the automakers' current position? We know from the stimulus that automakers are currently "lobbying against the government's attempt to pass legislation that would tighten restrictions on automobile emissions. The automakers contend that these new restrictions would be overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution."
The author concludes that "the automobile industry's position should not be heeded."
Why? The author points out a previous position held by the automakers in 1970, i.e. "in opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States automobile industry argued that meeting the act's standards for automobile emissions was neither economically feasible nor environmentally necessary." However, the "catalytic converter," invented in 1967, "enabled automakers to meet the 1970 standards efficiently."
For these reasons, the author states that the automobile industry's current position should not be heeded.
Thus, answer choice (D) is correct in describing how the author counters the automakers' current position by drawing a comparison between their current position and a position they held in the past.
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Ashley-TienJune 22, 2018
I still don't get why D is correct; the fact that the 1967 converter allowed them to abide by standards was not a position the automakers took, but a fact.
AnitaJune 27, 2018
@Ashley-Tien The converter isn't part of their stance; it was a fact that undermined their stance. That is, they said this 1970 regulation would be disastrous to their industry, when in reality, there was this part created three years earlier they could easily have taken advantage of (implying they weren't doing that due to cost, laziness, etc.) We then compare that to now, when they say a regulation would be disastrous to their industry, where D is pointing out that the industry was the boy who cried wolf, and if they said something similar would be horrible in the past and it wasn't, then who are we to believe them now.
DanielDePasqualeAugust 17, 2018
Why is answer choice E incorrect?
AnitaAugust 18, 2018
@DanielDePasquale The argument here doesn’t provide evidence that this is economically feasible or environmentally necessary so much as questioning the claim that it isn’t based on prior similar experiences.
