A major impediment to wide acceptance of electric vehicles

[lemonperb]

The focus of the problem is on people who are reluctant to buy EV's because the EV's cannot be used for extended road trips.

That choice is irrelevant to the issue. We don't care whether the primary use is for commuting or for errands; that distinction is irrelevant to the actual problem that the plan addresses (= longer road trips).

I see. Thanks Ron.
Sometimes I was not aware that I was adding extra premises when thinking about the questions.

[tim]

:)

[gmatkiller_24]

no problem about the choices. just a single problem for my analysis of the argument.

so what the argument assumed was that "offering consumers three day free rental" can solve the major impediment "occasional extended trips"?

Is that correct ? Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

no problem about the choices. just a single problem for my analysis of the argument.

so what the argument assumed was that "offering consumers three day free rental" can solve the major impediment "occasional extended trips"?

Is that correct ? Thanks!

that's the idea behind the plan, yes (since that's essentially the only thing that the rental car can do, but that the electric car can't).

[CrystalSpringston]

Could someone please explain why does B weaken the argument?

if that choice is true:

* it will make the electric vehicles even more expensive than they already are (= worse);
WHILE
* ... doing nothing for the existing problem; i.e., the new plan still doesn't make electric vehicles suitable for extended trips (= no change in the problem).

so, that plan makes another thing (the price) worse, while not affecting the original issue.

Hi Ron, I can understand B made the electric car less attactive because of cost increase.

But, what the question talks about is that it is the disadvantage(inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips) that hinders the sales. It doesn't talke about money at all.
My predict of the correct option is one that can prove the plan will still not solve the key problem mentioned. But surprisingly it weakens the plan from another perspective.
May I know why such weakening is legitimate?
Thank you

[RonPurewal]

But, what the question talks about is that it is the disadvantage(inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips) that hinders the sales.

the plan gives free car rentals. the free car rentals will solve that problem.

thus, that problem becomes a non-issue.

[RonPurewal]

My predict of the correct option is one that can prove the plan will still not solve the key problem mentioned. But surprisingly it weakens the plan from another perspective.

!!!

this should absolutely not be any kind of 'surprise'.
in fact, this is how ALL weakening problems work.
all of them.
every single one.

if you need to 'weaken an argument', you will ALWAYS weaken the argument by introducing an issue that has NOT been considered in the argument.

[CrystalSpringston]

But, what the question talks about is that it is the disadvantage(inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips) that hinders the sales.

the plan gives free car rentals. the free car rentals will solve that problem.

thus, that problem becomes a non-issue.

Hi Ron, I realised the key problem of my question is that I didn't understand why the plan( free rentals) solve that problem. The argument didn't tell us the reason for the impediment. Is it due to the high cost?

[RonPurewal]

i don't understand what you are asking.

the 'impediment'—the thing that's stopping many people from buying electric cars—is exactly what the words say:
the inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips

so, the problem has nothing to do with cost. the problem is that electric vehicles can't be used for long trips.
the reason probably has something to do with how the car works. (perhaps the battery can't go more than a couple hundred miles without having to stop overnight for a charge.) but we don't care why the cars can't go on long trips; we just know that they can't.
this is the problem solved by the rental cars.

[Crisc419]

I thought the question told us the importance of the conclusion. the conclusion of this question "is to make electric car more attractive".
we should always focus on the conclusion, and indeed sometimes the information in the stimulate differ from the conclusion.

for instance:

Herbicides allow cereal crops to be grown very efficiently, with virtually no competition from weeds. In Britain, partridge populations have been steadily decreasing since herbicide use became widespread. Some environmentalists claim that these birds, which live in and around cereal crop fields, are being poisoned by the herbicides. However, tests show no more than trace quantities of herbicides in partridges on herbicide-treated land. Therefore, something other than herbicide use must be responsible for the population decrease.

Which of the following, if true about Britain, most seriously weakens the argument?
A)The elimination of certain weeds from cereal crop fields has reduced the population of the small insects that live on those weeds and that form a major part of partridge chicks' diet.
B)Since partridges are valued as game birds, records of their population are more carefully kept than those for many other birds.
C)Some of the weeds that are eliminated from cereal crop fields by herbicides are much smaller than the crop plants themselves and would have no negative effect on crop yield if they were allowed to grow.
D)Birds other than partridges that live in or around cereal crop fields have also been suffering population declines.
E)The toxins contained in herbicides typically used on cereal crops can be readily identified in the tissues of animals that have ingested them.

in this choice, the author's conclusion is "something other than herbicide use must be responsible for the population decrease"; but in the stimulate Some environmentalists claim that these birds are being poisoned by the herbicides. this is a difference.

when i deal with this question, i was reluctant to choose choice A, because i thought it indeed tell me herbicides are responsible for the population decrease, but does not tell me about whether the birds are being poisoned by the herbicides. actually, choice A is enough, since it has weakened the conclusion of the argument(something other than herbicide use must be responsible for the population decrease).

in the same way, the quesion about the electric car , what we should focus is "to make them more attractive", although choice B seems not be relevant to the impediment , but it indeed deal with the author's conclusion.

please comment on my reasoning. thanks very much.

Cris

[RonPurewal]

you can weaken an argument by finding a flaw anywhere in the chain of reasoning.

if the argument is A --> B --> C --> conclusion, there is absolutely no reason at all why you would HAVE to weaken the "C --> conclusion" part. you could just as well weaken the "A --> B" or "B --> C" parts.

[Crisc419]

you can weaken an argument by finding a flaw anywhere in the chain of reasoning.

if the argument is A --> B --> C --> conclusion, there is absolutely no reason at all why you would HAVE to weaken the "C --> conclusion" part. you could just as well weaken the "A --> B" or "B --> C" parts.

yes, i get your point,sir, i just give some of my reflections.

thanks.

[RonPurewal]

ok.