丁丁倒数 75#

玛莎丁丁

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

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) Cutting down on pollution can be acheived in a variety of ways.
B) Taking public transportation rather than driving is not always feasible
C) Walking is the only feasible alternative to driving that results in reduction in pollution
D) there are people who never drive but who often walk
E) People sometimes drive when it is feasible to walk instead

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the arguement?

A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will not 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 diffferent rates, it is possible for one driver 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 migh themselves decide to drive.



OAs are E,B

玛莎丁丁

With a little explanation for Q2:

If more people decide to walk, two things can happen.
(1) Pollution caused by their own cars would be eliminated, which is obvious, and
(2) That would result in reducing congestion, hence exponentially reduce the emissions from other cars.

Hence, the correct answer should be  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.

s_dUSA

I love those questions

it is necessary assumption question, so we first elliminate C(only) and D(never)

Then, I see the conclusion, it has "feasible", but the premise didn't metion it, so the assumption should have it, so I elliminate A

Finally, for B and E, E metioned "drive" which is in the premise, so it may bridge the gap between the premise and the conclusion, but B told us public transportation whcih can not be found at all in the premise. So B definitely cannot be the bridge to fill the gap.

Thus, it should be E, and it turned out to be E.

Tough question, when I first read through the stimulus, I anticipated the answer but it didn't have the one I want, so I chose the answer by ellimination, but it does takes us some time to figure out why E is an assumption after I finished this question.