PT 23, section 3, question 10... Forum

[pattymac]

I don't understand why the answer is B and not C...anyone help me out here? Thanks.

[fosterp]

I'm kind of stumped on that too. I personally don't see how any of those choices strengthen the argument.

[yzero1]

So you're looking for an answer choice that will bolster the argument that pollution will decrease significantly if people walk whenever possible.

A) Does nothing for the argument, and mentions people who never drive instead of people who do drive. If anything, this weakens the argument because the people mentioned in this answer will not reduce pollution (since there won't be fewer vehicles on the road anyway).

B) If nonmoving running vehicles emit pollution (regardless of whether it's greater or less than the pollution emitted by moving vehicles) and greater congestion increases the # of nonmoving vehicles, then reducing congestion will decrease the # of nonmoving vehicles and thus reduce pollution. This answer basically explains a secondary benefit of walking instead of driving: walking = less cars = less congestion = less pollution from nonmoving vehicles. This increases the probability that walking will reduce pollution.

C) The existence of POSSIBLE differences in the contributions of drivers to pollution prevention does not provide any indication that pollution WILL be greatly reduced. This answer allows for the possibility that drivers who walk do not contribute to pollution prevention because of its weak language.

D) First of all, this answer doesn't even mention walking, which is an auto-flag for an incorrect answer. Also, the info is useless because it's not specified how much more pollution buses pump out or how many more passengers they carry - if we had this info, we'd at least be able to see which is more damaging for the environment.

E) This hurts the argument - if people who previously rode as passengers now drive instead, then the efforts of those who give up driving for walking will be offset.

It is unlikely that you'll see the correct answer on your first run-through of the answers. This question requires the use of POE to narrow down the options. Luckily, the 4 other incorrect answers are pretty obvious. But it's definitely a confusing question.

[Anaconda]

Very tough question. The answer is B - it's not fairly obvious either, but it's the only answer choice that basically hints that the more cars there are, the more pollution there is. If more people walked, there would be less congestion and therefore less pollution. C already assumes that walking reduces pollution, which means it doesn't strengthen the conclusion. I actually had trouble seeing why C was wrong, but I think B does a solid job at strengthening the conclusion by the fact that it states the more cars there are the more pollution there is, even if the cars aren't moving!

[fosterp]

I still don't buy it with B being a correct answer. The problem I have with it is the argument is that people walking instead of driving will reduce pollution. Answer B only contends that greater congestion means more non running vehicles. This doesn't support the conclusion at all because nowhere is it stated a relationship between people not walking when it is feasable and increasing congestion, resulting in more nonrunning vehicles. Increasing the number of people driving doesn't necessarily increase congestion. And even if more driving necessarily increased congestion, it wouldn't strengthen the argument anyway since the argument already establishes that walking instead of driving will reduce pollution.

I don't contend that C strengthens the argument either, but it seems that since none of the answers strengthen the argument, you could at best just make a guess as to what they intended to be correct.

[Anaconda]

B strengthens because it proves that the more cars on the street there are the more pollution is.caused as a result.

I still don't buy it with B being a correct answer. The problem I have with it is the argument is that people walking instead of driving will reduce pollution. Answer B only contends that greater congestion means more non running vehicles. This doesn't support the conclusion at all because nowhere is it stated a relationship between people not walking when it is feasable and increasing congestion, resulting in more nonrunning vehicles. Increasing the number of people driving doesn't necessarily increase congestion. And even if more driving necessarily increased congestion, it wouldn't strengthen the argument anyway since the argument already establishes that walking instead of driving will reduce pollution.

I don't contend that C strengthens the argument either, but it seems that since none of the answers strengthen the argument, you could at best just make a guess as to what they intended to be correct.