Q24 - In opposing the 1970 Clean

[hdw217]

Hi there,

was wondering why is B wrong? i understand why D is correct but don't have a clue as to why B is wrong.

[ohthatpatrick]

Most the of the wrong answers on "Describe the Argument"-type questions either bring up something out of scope or use wording that's too extreme.

I think "relying on false information" would scare me about (B). Where in the paragraph could we point to the author ever indicating that the auto industry is relying on incorrect information?

I'm guessing you're liking (B) by thinking this:
The auto industry said that meeting the 1970 Act's emission standards was not economically feasible
YET
The catalytic converter in 1967 enabled automakers to meet the standards efficiently.

I don't feel great about saying that this proves to us that the automakers were relying on "false information". They may have just been guided my "mistaken thinking". Those aren't necessarily the same thing to me.

But even if we accept that the 1967/1970 scenario shows that the automakers were saying something false when they said "it's not economically feasible", we couldn't justify the present tense in choice (B).

The author hasn't given us any indication that something currently exists that goes against the auto industry's current claim that meeting restrictions would be overly expensive.

So we can't point to anything that shows the automakers are CURRENTLY relying on something false.

Hope this helps.

[tzyc]

Hi,

Is (E) wrong because it does not provides evidence about enviromental necessity? (I think it shows how it is economically feasible so this part does not have problem...?)

Thank you

[cyt5015]

Hi,

Is (E) wrong because it does not provides evidence about enviromental necessity? (I think it shows how it is economically feasible so this part does not have problem...?)

Thank you

No evidence is provided for the economical feasibility or the environmental necessity of the NEW emission legislation. The catalytic convertor example was used to support the economical feasibility of the PAST legislation.

[economienda]

I need help understanding answer choice D. But first, I need help understanding the stimulus.

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's break down the facts.

1. There was a Clear Air Act in 1970. Its goal was to impose new standards for auto emissions (to force cars to burn cleaner exhaust)

2. The auto industry didn't like it.

Why? The auto industry had two objections:
--- A) We can't afford it (not economically feasible)
--- B) We don't need it (not environmentally necessary)

3. But when the catalytic converter was invented in 1967, it actually made it relatively easy (economically feasible) for the auto industry to meet the Clear Air Act's standards.

So, Auto Industry, it looks like you were wrong about Objection A.

4. Flash forward to the present: we're caught up in the same debate. The government wants to pass even cleaner emission standards. The auto industry is again arguing
--- A) overly expensive (not economically feasible)
--- B) unnecessary to curb pollution

5. In conclusion, shut up, auto industry. You said the same type of stuff back in the 60's and by innovating, it turned out that meeting the emissions standards was totally economically doable. So suck it up and get to work. Figure something out so that you can again make it feasible to meet the new emissions standard.

=== answer choices ===

(A) The automakers' premises do not contradict. They are "overly expensive" and "not needed to curb pollution".

(B) "False information" is too strong and unsupported. It's true that the auto industry was INCORRECT to say that they couldn't meet the 1970's standard feasibly. But maybe when they said this, they were relying on correct information. Maybe they said this BEFORE the catalytic converter was invented or before they understood how it could help them. The bottom line is that you can be WRONG without needing to have relied on FALSE information. We only know that their feasibility objection turned out to be wrong.

(C) The paragraph doesn't locate a reasoning flaw. The author is basically just citing precedent. The author's argument is just "If Larry was wrong before about X, then he's clearly wrong again about X."

(D) This is saying exactly what I was just demonstrating with the Larry analogy. The automakers thought they couldn't meet they 1970 standard. They proved to be wrong. The automakers think they can't meet the new standard (for the same reasons). Hence, they're wrong again.

(E) No evidence is provided that the new emissions standards are feasible OR necessary. We're just assuming that if the auto industry was able to find a solution before (catalytic converter), it will be able to find a solution again (but we have no evidence that it will in this case).

Hope this helps.