Please explain why A is right? In the premise it says using hybrid cars is fuel effecient
Politician: Hybrid cars use significantly less fuel per kilometer than nonhybrids. And fuel produces air pollution, which contributes to a number of environmental problems. Motorists can save money by driving cars that are more fuel efficient, and they will be encouraged to drive hybrid cars if we make them aware of that fact. Therefore, we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars.
Which of the following, if true, would most indicate a vulnerability of the politician’s argument?
(A) People with more fuel-efficient cars typically drive more than do those with less fuel-efficient cars.
(B) Not all air pollution originates from automobiles.
(C) Hybrid cars have already begun to gain popularity.
(D) Fuel-efficient alternatives to hybrid cars will likely become available in the future.
(E) The future cost of gasoline and other fuel cannot be predicted with absolute precision or certainty.
Hi Ria,
Total fuel (X) = Fuel per kilometer (A) x kilometer driven (B)
It is given in the passage that A will reduce. Based on this, the politician concludes that X would also reduce. What if B increases? X would not reduce in this case.
The politician has assumed that B would not increase. Therefore, any statement that indicates that B would increase is the correct answer.
Option A indicates that the number of kilometers driven will increase. Hence this is the correct answer.
Hope this helps!