Q3 - There should be a greater

[wj097]

Hey guys,

This is a strengthen EXCEPT question and wanted to test if (E) could have been a viable answer choice if we tweaked a little bit. If it rather talked about some aspect of gasoline that is bad in general sense but no ways can be assessed in comparison to gasohol, then would that be still be a strengthener or turn into an irrelevant answer choice. (e.g., Burning gasoline adds more sulfuric acid to the atmosphere which can harm the ozone).

Thx

[maryadkins]

In your example, (E) would still be a strengthener to this question. You wrote burns "more" as in, in comparison to Gashol. If it just said burning gas adds sulfuric acid to the atmosphere but didn't include any comparative language at all, such that we didn't at all have any idea about how it compared to Gashol, then yes, it would be irrelevant.

[saraafifiahmed]

So is C the correct answer ? And if you please can you explain how did you analyze the question stem reaching the write answer ? Thanks.

[maryadkins]

Sure!

The argument is:

Gashol has a higher octane rating and fewer carbon monoxide emissions than gasoline

+

Burning it adds no more CO2 to the atmosphere than plants can get rid of

-->

There should be greater use of Gasohol

What is the assumption? Well, there are a lot. Maybe there are other factors to consider in evaluating Gasohol. Maybe it does other bad stuff, or doesn't do as much good stuff as regular gasoline.

We are looking for the answer choice that DOESN'T strengthen the argument. Four of them do, one won't.

(A) strengthens by pointing out that Gasohol actually works better than gasoline, eliminating one assumption.

(B) strengthens by saying it's better at preventing an energy shortage.

(D) strengthens by saying it's cheaper.

(E) strengthens by showing how gasoline is worse.

(C) actually weakens it! This means it will take more Gasohol than gasoline to run cars, on average. That certainly could be bad—maybe it costs more in the long-run because you need more, for instance. Maybe the difference means it will pollute more in the long-run.

Hope this helps!

[a8l367]

Sure!

(C) actually weakens it! This means it will take more Gasohol than gasoline to run cars, on average. That certainly could be bad—maybe it costs more in the long-run because you need more, for instance. Maybe the difference means it will pollute more in the long-run.

Argument: gasohol should be used because it's better for the environment.
Question: which does not strengthen?
C) gasohol used in slightly more quantities
D) gasohol is cheaper

C - doesn't "slightly" strengthen the argument? Now we now that gasohol should be used only "slightly" more, not a lot more.
D - why price is relevent? Cheaper so what? We are talking about environment. Moreover, if cheaper than will be afordable in more quantities and will be used more, harming the environment.

Please explain.

[AnnaT620]

I was stuck between C and D here, incorrectly picking D here. I read this and understood that if D is correct, and it is cheaper - then maybe people would use more of it? IS this reading into the answer choice too much? How do you avoid this as a takeaway?

Thank you!

[Misti Duvall]

I was stuck between C and D here, incorrectly picking D here. I read this and understood that if D is correct, and it is cheaper - then maybe people would use more of it? IS this reading into the answer choice too much? How do you avoid this as a takeaway?

Thank you!

I think that's fair. The conclusion is that there should be greater use of gasohol, and, if it's cheaper, that strengthens the idea that it should be used more. One way to make Strengthen and Weaken questions a little easier is to read and analyze the argument, then compare the answers back to the conclusion.