PT June 2007.S2.Q08 - proponents of the electric car

westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
edited July 2016 in Logical Reasoning 3788 karma
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

  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    In ac-A the author need not directly prove proponents wrong. The author is simply stating premises that lead to a conclusion that the proponents have not fully considered the added environmentally problematic consequences associated with widespread electric car use.
    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.
  • westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
    edited July 2016 3788 karma
    In stating that there will be worse enivironmental consequences than what the proponents may believe, answer choice A seems to imply that rather than an abatement there won't be such reduction of auto emissions because of the detrimental emissions of the battery production process of the electric cars that they cite. I do agree that the author idoesnt directly contradict the proponents, but answer choice A seems state otherwise because of how it states that the enivronmental consequences will be worse as opposed to may be worse.

    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.
  • westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
    3788 karma
    bump!
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    @westcoastbestcoast said:
    answer choice A seems to imply that rather than an abatement there won't be such reduction of auto emissions because of the detrimental emissions of the battery production process of the electric cars that they cite
    It doesn't say there won't be a reduction. It says the proponents' calculations are to some degree overly optimistic. The author is making a simple point that whatever level of environmental goodness widespread electric car use would reach must also include the mitigating factors of increased electricity production (making the actual environmental impact worse(less-good) than the proponents assert.
    I think we must include all emissions associated with automobile use (Battery production, electicity consumption/production, tires etc).
  • blah170blahblah170blah Alum Inactive ⭐
    edited July 2016 3545 karma
    @nye8870 explainsd it well. Answer choice E assumes the only or the most significant consideration to reducing environment degradation is the charging process of batteries. But what if charging batteries is as bad as they say but in the long term the way we get fuel is no longer sustainable so using fuel is even worse for the environment than charging our batteries for cars? Then there could be a reduction in environmental degradation. The stimulus doesn't preclude this truth from being a possibility, which is why E is out of scope and unsubstantiated.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    Ya know, it's funny. I believe I can also say that the the author doesn't disagree in any way with the proponents. ac-A carefully qualifies itself by stating the environmental impact "will" be worse than the proponents "may believe". So I think the author is saying "I agree that auto emissions will be abated and that is good for the environment, however along with said abatement come new hazards to our environment beyond emissions and those are caused by the increase in electricity production." "The proponents may or may not have come to realize this.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    @westcoastbestcoast said:
    what is meant by auto emissions
    So I must retract my earlier statement about including all the other stuff. Per my most recent post: Auto emissions are just auto emissions. Widespread use of electric powered cars will lead to the abatement of the auto emissions and that is good for the environment. Now on the other hand, production of more electricity requires three environmentally hazardous activities. So how well off the environment is not yet known but knowing that there are also some negative impacts pending out there it will be worse off than the giddy optimistic electric car proponents may believe.
  • westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
    3788 karma
    Thank you all for the explanations. So the general gist of the stimulus is that the proponents share an optimism for the environmental-friendliness of the electric car, whereas the author mentions considerations about the battery production that show that the optimism is misplaced or that the consequences are worse than they believe. I originally had trouble with this question because the points that the author didn't seem to directly touch upon what the proponents believed but it does bring some concern to their implied optimism about the electric car.
Sign In or Register to comment.