LSAT-26-3-10【walk rather than drive】

pocahontas

If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.

10. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?

(A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will be fewer vehicles on the road as a result.

(B) Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is , the more nonmoving running vehicles there are.

(C) Since different vehicles can pollute at different rates, it is possible for one drive who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.

(D) On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.

(E) Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive might themselves decide to drive.

key's B. B是说，没有走动的已经发动的车散发出的污染是正在行走的车的一半。但是没有走动的已经发动的车越多，交通拥挤就越厉害，所以散发的污染就越多。

B的意思只是批驳了通过增加“没有走动的已经发动的车”来减少污染的这种观点。这怎么能看出是加强了观点呢？？

davecools

Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles这句话超误导。

重点在后面the greater congestion is , the more nonmoving running vehicles there are！

你不开车，自然congestion的机会就低了……

robertchu

I disagree.  "congestion" or not is out-of-scope of the original argument.

I pick A.  The original argument says "If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise."  But this claim is questionable, because it could be the case that a non-driving passenger -- a rider -- choose to walk and the number of vehicles emitting polution isn't necessarily reduced.  A, "If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will be fewer vehicles on the road as a result," if ture, plugs this hole and therefore strengthens the original argument.

Open to discussion.

pocahontas

I agree with you that A could be strengthen the argument.

But in a strengthen-Q we can't rule out a possible option when there is a out-of-scope word. And I'm still puzzled about B. Actually I'm puzzled about what the whole sentence of B wanna express.

lawyer_1

B 的意思：不移动的车虽然单位时间污染少，但车堵得越厉害，在路上的时间越多（the more nonmoving running vehicles there are）。即不移动的车实际污染更大，相比之下，车有移动，污染要小，这为原文的结论提供了另一个证据（直接支持结论）：路上车越少，除了更少车污染外（原文证据），车也越流畅（MOVING），流畅的车总体污染少（因在路上时间少）（B）。

建议看一下我的总结中的SUPPORT部分：逻辑题的大体思路。

pocahontas

哦！！懂了，但是觉得A也是可以的啊？

ps：逻辑题的大体思路那个帖子很多我看不懂。可能没有例子难理解别人的思路，也可能被狒狒的那些做题方法影响，不能在段时间内改用你的那些做题思维。

lawyer_1

(A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will NOT be fewer vehicles on the road as a result。漏掉NOT，故A是WEAKEN。

pocahontas

啊，对对，这个是从elsat上直接copy过来的，elsat上面很多打印错误，sorry~

那么如果没有not，是不是就可以把A看作加强呢？

robertchu

You guys are kidding me.  How can the land-sliding "NOT" missed in elsat?  Throw that book/software away immediately!  :-)

pocahontas

lol~~ elsat is typed by guys like me~~