PT73.S4.Q14 - Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline

samirakhafa

Hey guys, for this MBT question, my gut instinct told me that the third sentence is a conditional. I interpreted it as if you reflect the cost —> would pollute less. If this is correct, how would I incorporate the second sentence into it, / reflect cost—> /affect decision to drive? I’m having a hard time seeing the overlap between these two statements.

Thanks again for your input!

BinghamtonDave

A few quick things: this is a most strongly supported question. Although there is some general overlap between MBT and MSS questions, the two can often be quite different: mainly in the level of support each receives from the stimulus. With MBT questions being something that generally derives stronger support from the stimulus.
The second thing to point out here is that there is no really conditional language here. I believe you are having a bit of difficulty here with the "overlap" between the statements because they are not designed to be read/interpreted in a way that would lend them to be overlapped.

So, on to the problem itself. This stimulus is about externalities. The environmentalist
says:
-cars burn gasoline that contributes to pollution
-this pollution (problem) is not reflected in the price of gasoline.
-and because this pollution is not reflected in the price: this fact does not make people conserve their driving. (I'm being charitable here: the actual stimulus says: "does not effect consumer's decisions about how much to drive," I think common sense interpretation here means driving less.)

So we have set up this problem, that if we pause to put this together makes sense: consumers aren't aware this this environmental cost because the environmental cost has not been passed on in a way (increase in cost of the gasoline) that would allow them to realize/understand the problem. I should pause here for a personal story: I once had a science professor that told the class that he thought plastic recycling was so important and the manufacturing of new plastics so harmful to the environment that he proposed a $2 deposit fee on every plastic product from ketchup bottles to shampoos containers. The key here being: that every time someone bought a plastic bottle, they pay an extra $2, but this would give people an incentive to recycle the plastic to get the money back: kind of like cans and bottles. When I raised the objection that it would cost regular every day people much more money to buy things they needed he said: "they would become aware of the problem." This is similar to what is going on in question 14.

-our argument then takes a trajectory much like my professor: heavier taxes on gasoline would make people pollute less.

A quick word on MSS: (C) is less than perfect in my opinion. I personally would be leaning towards something mentioning how heavier taxes on gasoline would make people drive less: this is I believe going with the internal logic of the problem. (C) says if we raise the price of gasoline to reflect this externality (environmental cost), consumers would buy less gasoline. I guess so... because they are driving less? And here we get to the heart of the MSS/MBT divide. I don't love this answer but it is the best of the bunch and it does have some support. Others can chime in for sure but this is a point of difference between the two question types.

I hope this helps
David

samirakhafa

Hey @BinghamtonDave thanks for the explanation. I’m still a bit confused though. How would you eliminate E. is it because it’s too strong since the stimulus says “as a result cosumers would pollute less” ?

BinghamtonDave

(E) has a very specific necessary condition. That level of specificity is not supported by the stimulus. The stimulus leaves open the possibility (by not actively excluding it) that pollution via gasoline can be lowered other ways. This would be a denial of that stated conditional.