Q1 - Combustion of gasoline in automobile

[ottoman]

Premise 1: replace gasoline with methanol, which does not produce significant quantities of benzene.
Counterpremise: But it produces another carcinogen.

Conclusion: proposal has little merit.

I choose E for this question. I know E is not a great answer because spills is not mentioned in the stimulus but I think that is the only answer can justify or strengthen the argument that proposal has little merit.

Can you explain why D is the right answer?
Thank you!

[patrice.antoine]

.I choose E for this question. I know E is not a great answer because spills is not mentioned in the stimulus but I think that is the only answer can justify or strengthen the argument that proposal has little merit.

Can you explain why D is the right answer?
Thank you!

I think I see your problem. The question asks not what can strengthen/support the argument that the proposal has little merit but what most supports the environmentalist's proposal.

Hopefully this helps you see why (D) is the better answer here. We are looking for an answer choice that best supports the environmentalist.

[ottoman]

Thank you so much Patrice!

[tommywallach]

Looks like Patrice beat me to an explanation on this one, but that's absolutely right. This is a very tricky question, because it's not asking you to strengthen the argument, but the counterargument. The lesson here is obvious: always read the question carefully!

Thanks, Patrice!

-t

[rachel.zuliniak]

Agree with the above, I was confused for a second when I first read the answer choices. In case anyone is interested anyway:

Environmentalists' argument: Replace gasoline with methanol (no significant benzene burn off).

Author's counter: Ethanol may not produce significant amounts of the carcinogen benzene but it does produce another carcinogen, formaldehyde.

What can the environmentalists say to strengthen their point that methanol is still a better choice?

A) Diesel is completely irrelevant. The argument is about gasoline vs. methanol (and we're on team methanol for the purpose of this question).
B) Similar problem to above, doesn't touch on our gasoline vs. methanol debate.
C) Completely out of scope and for a side note, it only refers to automobile fuel. For all we know based on the argument, both of these fit into that category.
D) This is our answer. If formaldehyde (produced by methanol) is a less potent carcinogen that's a good reason why we should make the switch.
E) Tricky because it plays on the idea that we have environmentalists (and therefore possibly environmental issues in the argument). However, this also would, if anything, weaken the argument. It says methanol spills are more damaging to the environment than gasoline spills.