PT150 S3 Q19 ExplanationHenry: Engines powered by electricity

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct38% picked this

   Pollution caused by power plants is generally confined to a small number of locations a significant

   Why this is right

   This allows us to counter that "Yes, there will be more power plant pollution in a world of electric cars, but there were still be less urban pollution than before ... ", since power plant pollution isn't urban pollution. It's confined to a small number of locations significantly far away from (urban areas). There are a lot of lovably strong modifiers in this answer to give it some punch.

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   38%
2. B

   No Impact45% picked this

   The increased air pollution resulting from a greater demand for electricity would be offset by the reduction in air

   We might be doubtful of this answer since it's specifically talking about air pollution, when the truth value of Henry's / Umit's conclusion hinges on whether there's a reduction in urban pollution. I'm not sure if a change in air pollution is necessarily a change in urban pollution (even though one would assume that air pollution affects everyone in both rural and urban areas). But perhaps the bigger problem with this answer is that it doesn't give us way to say, "Yes, there would be more power plant pollution in an electric car world, but there would still be less urban pollution." It sounds like we would have equal urban pollution. When we say that the increase was offset by the decrease, the net effect is equilibrium. When you're saying "the pros outweigh the cons", then you say "the deficits are more than offset by the advantages".

   45%
3. C

   Too Weak7% picked this

   Electric motors could be restricted to lighter vehicles such as compact cars, which have smaller batteries and therefore require less power to charge than

   This answer definitely finds a nice compromise between Henry's original position and Umit's objection, but the question stem wants the strongest counter. That essentially means, "Try to defend the original position", not "try to amend the original position to accommodate the 2nd person's objection". Henry was saying "replace regular cars with electric cars". Not replace some regular cars, just the small ones. And Umit's objection was about "widespread use" of electric cars. So saying, "okay, what if we restrict it to lightweight cars" is basically conceding that your opponent effectively rejected your original position.

   7%
4. D

   Out of Scope2% picked this

   Hybrid vehicles using both electric and gasoline power moderate the increased demand for electricity produced

   This feels like (C) in the sense of offering a compromise, rather than a logical counter. But hybrid vehicles are totally out of scope. These two are debating a proposition about whether replacing gas cars with electric cars would reduce urban pollution. Making that switch either would or wouldn't reduce urban pollution. The possible effects of hybrid vehicles are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of that proposition.

   2%
5. E

   Doesn't Address Objection7% picked this

   Most power plants are currently operating well below capacity and could therefore accommodate the increased

   The objection wasn't about whether the power plants could handle the increased demand, it was about whether the increased demand would end up generating as least as much pollution as a world in which people drive gas cars.

   7%