https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-08/For this particular question, I'm having trouble understanding why answer choice E is incorrect. Because we know that the batteries that power electric cars come from nuclear or coal plants, and since we know that those power sources causes significant environmental damage, is it logical to state that there may not be a net reduction of environmental degradation? Saying that there won't be a reduction in environmental degradation seemed logical to me because it hints at 2 possibilities: 1. the considerable environmental damage caused by the battery production will produce the damage as would the emissions of an ordinary car. 2. The battery production will produce more damage than the emissions from a ordinary car.
I also had a hard time understanding why answer choice A is correct. The proponents beliefs seemed to talk about the abatement of environmental degradation specifically linked to a decrease in auto-emissions rather than an overall abatement of environmental degradation, while the author seem to not directly touch on the proponents point but rather mention an additionally concern of battery production. Even though battery production creates causes its own environmental damage, isn't it still the case that there is a decrease of environmental degradation that specifically arises from auto-emissions, because of the fact that electric cars don't have its own emissions. If that case is true, wouldn't the proponents stance hold and the environmental consequences aren't as worse as proponents believe them to be.
Comments
In ac-E the author never makes specific ratio type assertions, more just that it won't be all peaches and cream (environmentally speaking), considering there will be "unintended" consequences in order to produce all the electricity that will be required to sustain widespread electric car use.
Additionally, Im having trouble understanding what is meant by auto emissions by the stimulus. If we assume that emissions refer to just the emissions coming from the car during its use, it would seem that the author is adressing a different source of environmental degradation, the battery production itself. If this were the case, then the author wouldn't be actually suggesting that the enivronmental consequences would actually be worse than the proponents made them be.
I think we must include all emissions associated with automobile use (Battery production, electicity consumption/production, tires etc).