PrepTest 150, Section 3, Question 19
Henry: Engines powered by electricity from batteries cause(55 more words not shown)
Of the following, which one,(12 more words not shown)
- APollution caused by(17 more words not shown)
- BThe increased air(21 more words not shown)
- CElectric motors could(30 more words not shown)
- DHybrid vehicles using(15 more words not shown)
- EMost power plants(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Less pollution from the engine doesn't necessarily mean less pollution overall. What about producing the batteries? And even if pollution falls, what would replacing all these cars cost? Those are questions Henry hasn't answered yet.
Umit begins with the cars' short range, which initially sounds like a practical objection: perhaps people couldn't drive far enough. But the rest ties the range back to pollution. Frequent recharging means more electricity production, and power plants pollute. The emissions may have moved to another part of the process.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for Henry's strongest response to that objection. Notice that his conclusion concerns urban pollution. One reply could be that the power-plant pollution stays far away from cities. Another could be that, even counting electricity generation, the replacement produces less pollution overall. Either would help explain why Umit's added source of pollution doesn't defeat Henry's point.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Henry proposes the change to reduce pollution in cities. If power-plant pollution is generally confined to locations far from major cities, that extra pollution doesn't undo the relevant urban benefit. The cars can pollute less in cities while the additional electricity is produced with pollution elsewhere.
The word 'confined' matters: A says where the pollution stays, not merely where the plants are located. This doesn't establish that the proposal is best for the planet or cost-effective. It directly answers Umit's objection to the narrower urban-pollution argument.
- B
This resembles the prediction about counting both sources, but it only says the increases and reductions offset one another. That gives us a balance, not the net reduction that would support Henry through this route. B also doesn't locate the pollution, so it doesn't establish an urban improvement the way A does.
That doesn't prove switching would be pointless. An equal total could still be distributed more favorably for cities. B simply doesn't tell us that, and so it is a weaker response than A.
- C
Smaller batteries require less power than larger batteries, but how much pollution would the restricted proposal produce compared with the gasoline vehicles it replaces? And where would that pollution be? C doesn't answer those questions. Reducing the added demand could help; the comparison alone doesn't establish the urban benefit Henry needs.
- D
Hybrid vehicles moderate the added electricity demand, but we still need the resulting pollution comparison. How much urban pollution would the hybrids and their electricity production create together? Merely moderating one source doesn't tell us that the proposal produces less urban pollution overall.
- E
Capacity isn't cleanliness. Power plants might be able to supply all the extra electricity and still produce substantial additional pollution doing so. Umit's objection concerns those emissions, not whether the plants can meet demand.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.