Proponents of the electric car maintain that when the technical problems associated with its battery design are solved, such cars will be widely used and, because they are emission-free, will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions. But unless we dam more rivers, the electricity to charge these batteries will come from nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Each of these three power sources produces considerable environmental damage.
Thus, the electric car
(A) will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe
(B) will probably remain less popular than other types of cars
(C) requires that purely technical problems be solved before it can succeed
(D) will increase the total level of emissions rather than reduce it
(E) will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation
A. Correct. This accurately reflects the argument’s flaw. The proponents ignore the pollution created in generating electricity, meaning the overall environmental impact may be greater than expected.
B. This misses the point. The author never discusses what factors influence a car’s popularity.
C. The argument doesn’t rule out the possibility that electric cars could still be preferable to gas-powered ones. Even with pollution from electricity generation, they might still pollute less overall.
D. This goes beyond the argument. The author establishes that pollution exists, not that electric cars create more pollution than gas cars. Plus, the reference to “emissions” may not apply to all power sources, such as nuclear energy.
E. Similar to D, this overreaches. The argument supports the idea that pollution will occur, but not necessarily that it will exceed current levels.
