Q14 - Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Inference (Most Strongly Supported)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Car pollution is bad. Gas is too cheap and doesn't influence purchase decisions. More taxes would fix this.

Answer Anticipation:
A lot of information about taxes, cars, and pollution. Some combination of them will be the answer, but I wouldn't have a specific prediction.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Degree/normative language. That "should" is a red flag since the author doesn't take a stance in the stimulus (don't read something into it just because it's an environmentalist!). Also, the conditionals here don't necessarily line up - the author never states this is the only reason to enact a gas tax.

(B) Out of scope. The stimulus doesn't care about knowledge of pollution issues, just knowledge of gas prices.

(C) Bingo. This answer combines the statements given. The stimulus states that the price of gasoline (through heavier taxes) would go up if the impact of pollution was taken into account. It also states higher taxes would change consumer behavior, resulting in them polluting less. Put these together, and we can infer that if the impact was factored into the cost, consumers would purchase less.

(D) Degree. While the environmentalist certainly states that the price of gasoline is a factor in driving decisions, there's nothing to back up that it's the only cost considered.

(E) Reversal/degree. The author believes increasing the price will result in less pollution (i.e., it's sufficient). However, this answer treats it as necessary.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When there is a lot of overlapping info, it's often best to hop right into the answers and eliminate as many as possible while comparing the answers that sound good to the information presented in the stimulus.

#officialexplanation