Q25 - In opposing the 1970

[KakaJaja]

I chose A by eliminating others. But I don't really understand A. What does it mean by "the required technology"? Can anyone help? Thx!

[ohthatpatrick]

These are some weird choices, frankly.

Let's keep in mind that the government's goal in potentially tightening restrictions on emissions is to curb air pollution (presumably by reducing emissions).

The automakers have said that the restrictions would be too expensive and aren't needed to curb air pollution.

Since we're going to strengthen the automakers' position, let's assume for a second they're correct. They believe that air pollution can be curbed (emissions can be reduced) without tighter restrictions. Maybe the automakers are already hard at work on that goal.

The "required technology" that (A) seems to refer to is "the technology required to meet whatever emission requirements are in place".

So (A) is basically describing a way that legislators would thwart their own goal. According to (A), if legislators tighten emissions, then automakers will have a harder time meeting the new standard. This strengthens the automakers' claim that the new restrictions are unnecessary, since it makes it seem like enacting new restrictions would make the goal of reduced emissions even LESS likely.

(B) strengthens the legislator's point of view. It makes it seem like emissions-restriction technology (which the new law would demand) can often be successful --- or at least, it can avoid doing the opposite of what it's intended to do.

(C) "not all" / "not every" statements are incredibly weak and should normally be avoided on Strengthen and Weaken. If anything though, this might strengthen the legislators' point of view by suggesting, "Hey, automakers, the new standards MIGHT not even force you to comply with them."

(D) This definitely strengthens the legislators' point of view, assuming there are more cars on the road these days.

(E) This also strengthens the legislators' view. More specifically, it seems to weaken the automakers' claim that new restrictions are "unnecessary" by suggesting that automakers rarely make non-profit-related changes of their own accord.

No pun intended. (Honda Accord) :p

Hope this helps.

[KakaJaja]

Thanks a lot! That helps!!

[Mab6q]

I missed this question because I misread the question thinking it required us to strengthen the argument against the automakers claim. That was a very costly mistake. I spent way more time than I should have debating B and E, because both strengthen the main argument's point. However that is the trap in this question - we have to read the question carefully. It's not coincidence that this appears at the end of the section where you more likely to lower your guard.

Read diligently!

[wxpttbh]

I felt quite confused because I cannot find the core exactly.