Home

greenville

Default Asked on May 4, 2016 in Critical Reasoning.
Add Comment
Cancel
15 Answer(s)

All other options weaken the argument (call into question) of replacing gasoline with solar cells. These options imply that using solar cells is not going to solve the problem of reducing green house gases.

However option 4 states that vehicles do not generate green house gases and hence doesn’t weaken (call into question).
Cancel
Default Answered on May 4, 2016.
Add Comment
Cancel

In this question we have to find the option which will not weaken mayor’s plan.

Mayor’s plan is to decrease green house gases by promoting solar power vehicles.
OA-A –>weakening mayor’s plan by showing that solar cells consumes more fossil fuel, so it can’t be a greener source of energy
OA-B–>this one says that even though gasoline fulled vehicles are banned , people can still use gasoline by filling it up from other source, so mayor’s plan would fail.
OA-C–>the amount of green house gases would increase from the cattle, so the plan to control green house gas is failing again.
OA-E–>the production of solar cell got reduced ,so there may be shortage of solar power vehicles in the city and so mayor’s plan may fail.
So, we are left with OA-D alone.
In this question, process of elimination would be a better approach rather then finding the correct answer.
Hope it will answer your question.
Cancel
Default Answered on May 4, 2016.
Add Comment
Cancel

Hi Devyani,
Your reason for eliminating E is fine. But let’s look at the answer choice D.
 
D – New research has shown evidence that disproves the popular notion that vehicle emissions are causative for the production of greenhouse  gasses. 
If this were true then there would be no difference between solar cell based vehicles and other vehicles. Going further with the plan would not make any sense.
Therefore D is the right answer.
Cancel
Default Answered on May 5, 2016.
Add Comment
Cancel

Greenville, an agricultural city, will be doubling its cattle population the coming year. To make the city more conducive for cattle rearing, Greensville’s mayor plans to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses generated in the city. He plans to promote widespread use of solar powered vehicles rather than gasoline powered ones; he therefore plans to ban gasoline sale for use in vehicles. He argues that solar power represents a far greener source of energy (producing lesser greenhouse gasses) than does fossil fuel.

All of the following call into question the feasibility of the proposed plan, EXCEPT

  1. 1.The process of making solar cells that will power vehicles involves the use of more fossil fuel than what it would take to power a conventional gasoline vehicle through its entire life cycle
  2. 2.Since most of the citizens of Greensville prefer gasoline powered vehicles, they will drive to their neighboring cities to fuel up, when they need to
  3. 3.It has been found that the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by cattle far exceeds that of those produced by gasoline powered vehicles
  4. 4.New research has shown evidence that disproves the popular notion that vehicle emissions are causative for the production of greenhouse gasses.
  5. 5.There was a decrease of 20 percent in the production of solar cells last year
Can anyone explain why 4 is the answer?

 

Cancel
Default Answered on May 4, 2016.
Add Comment
Cancel

I want to know that too. +1

Cancel
Default Answered on May 4, 2016.
Add Comment
Cancel

All other options weaken the argument (call into question) of replacing gasoline with solar cells. Option 4 doesn’t.  It supports that vehicles do not produce emissions.

Cancel
Default Answered on May 4, 2016.
Add Comment
Cancel

Deleted 😛

Cancel
Beginner Answered on May 4, 2016.
Add Comment
Cancel

But option 4 states that vehicle emissions aren’t a cause of greenhouse gases. This weakens the mayor’s proposal of shifting to solar powered vehicles by banning gasoline powered ones in order to reduce greenhouse emissions.Doesn’t it?

Cancel
Default Answered on May 4, 2016.
Add Comment
Cancel

Yes, Akshat you are right. Even i am confused now. This must not be an official question then.

Or the OA may be option 5 as even if the production of solar cells has decreased last year, it says nothing about this or the coming years.
     — Deepak Singh
Cancel
Beginner Answered on May 4, 2016.
Add Comment
Cancel

Hi All,

As per the argument, Mayor’s main goal is to reduce pollution to make city conducive for cattle rearing.
So his plan -> ban gasoline sale – promote solar power (so that vehicles will use solar power) -> as this will reduce greenhouse gases in air. 
“He argues that solar power represents a far greener source of energy (producing lesser greenhouse gasses) than does fossil fuel.”
We need to find an option that doesn’t weaken this argument.
Now coming to options, as mentioned by Subhasis, E weakens the argument by saying that there is not enough solar cells available in market (decrease of 20 percent in the production of solar cells last year).
If enough solar cells are not available in market (due to any reason), then public will have no option other than using gasoline and thus Mayor’s plan to reduce green house gases will fail.

Option D tells us that vehicle emisions are not causing production of green house gases, but this option doesn’t tell “which type of vehicle – gasoline powered or solar cell powered”.
If we think logically, this option might seem to say that any change with type of oil for vehicles will not change level of pollution but doesn’t weaken the point that use of solar cells will reduce green house gases. 
We need to stick to weaken the reasoning => promotion and usage of solar power ->  will lead to reduction in green house gases production.

So, I would go with D as we reach to it by POE.
Also, please let us know the source of question.

Experts please comment if my line of reasoning is wrong.

Thanks.
Cancel
Default Answered on May 5, 2016.
Add Comment
Cancel

Your Answer

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.