Company spokesperson: In lieu of redesigning our plants, our company recently launched an environmental protection campaign to buy and dispose of old cars, which are generally highly pollutive.
Conclusion
We'll reduce air pollution more by buying old cars than by redesigning our plants.
Evidence
Our plants account for only 4% of local air pollution, while automobiles that predate 1980 account for 30%.
Evaluation
The conclusion is only about comparing these two possible actions, so we can only disagree with the author by saying that the plan to redesign plants would actually reduce air pollution more.
But how can we argue that? If they succeeded in getting all the pre-1980 cars off the road, they'd reduce 30% of the current pollution. If their plant redesign went as well as possible, it would only reduce 4% of the current air pollution.
Goal
We need a way to argue our attempt to buy up the old pre-1980 cars and get them off the road, would only amount to 4% or less. Either we have to be unable to buy up all the cars (so that the pollution savings is way less than 30%), or the people whose old cars we buy would have to THEN create more air pollution as a result (so that the net savings of air pollution is way less than 30%).