A major impediment to wide acceptance of electric vehicles

[susmod]

A major impediment to wide acceptance of electric vehicles even on the part of people who use their cars almost
exclusively for commuting is the inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips. In an attempt to
make purchasing electric vehicles more attractive to commuters, one electric vehicle producer is planning to
offer customers three days free rental of a conventional car for every 1,000 miles that they drive their electric
vehicle.
Which of the following, if true, most threatens the plan's prospects for success?
(A) Many eclectic vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips.
(B) Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week, the cost to the producer of making good
the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles.
(C) The relatively long time it takes to recharge the battery of an electric vehicle can easily be fitted into the
regular patterns of car use characteristic of commuters.
(D) Although eclectic vehicles are essentially emission-free in actual use, generating the electricity necessary
for charging an electric vehicle's battery can burden the environment.
(E) Some family vehicles are used primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips, such as to do
errands.

Source: GMATPrep
OA:B

Could someone please explain why does B weaken the argument?

[zaarathelab]

Here we need to find a reason that will make the purchase of electric cars unattractive for all prospective buyers.

(A) Many electric vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips. IRRELEVANT
(B) Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week, the cost to the producer of making good
the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles. CORRECT. HENCE. COST IS A DETERRENT
(C) The relatively long time it takes to recharge the battery of an electric vehicle can easily be fitted into the STRENGTHEN RATHER THAN WEAKEN
regular patterns of car use characteristic of commuters.
(D) Although electric vehicles are essentially emission-free in actual use, generating the electricity necessary
for charging an electric vehicle's battery can burden the environment. THIS DOESN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP WITH CONSUMER BUYING PREFERENCES
(E) Some family vehicles are used primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips, such as to do
errands. 'SOME' NARROWS THE SCOPE. WE NEED A REASON THAT WILL AFFECT ALL BUYERS

Hope this helps!

Zaara

[RonPurewal]

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.

[xiaoma11881]

* ... 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).

Hi Ron,
I just cannot understand this part quite well. From my perspective, the proposal provides a solution to offset the weakness of the electric cars though the company cannot solve the problem totally.
And does it really counters when we pick out the right answer? I mean, I can understand "expensive" reason and pick out B.

[vivek.bs2010]

Hi Ron,
I just cannot understand this part quite well. From my perspective, the proposal provides a solution to offset the weakness of the electric cars though the company cannot solve the problem totally.
And does it really counters when we pick out the right answer? I mean, I can understand "expensive" reason and pick out B.

Perhaps I can try.
Consider this. If true, option B forces the producer to provide free rentals to customers once almost every 10 weeks! As his car sales increase, so is the trouble he is going to get into with all the free rentals he is throwing in!
Since this is not a 'draw a conclusion / inference' type of question, we are definitely allowed to evaluate whether it would be a wise business choice for him, in other words, whether this decision is strengthening his purpose or weakening it. Not only is this solution an extremely poor business decision, but it doesn't even alleviate the original problem i.e. the inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips.
Weakens.

[monira.linda]

Here we need to find a reason that will make the purchase of electric cars unattractive for all prospective buyers.

(A) Many electric vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips. IRRELEVANT
(B) Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week, the cost to the producer of making good
the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles. CORRECT. HENCE. COST IS A DETERRENT
(C) The relatively long time it takes to recharge the battery of an electric vehicle can easily be fitted into the STRENGTHEN RATHER THAN WEAKEN
regular patterns of car use characteristic of commuters.
(D) Although electric vehicles are essentially emission-free in actual use, generating the electricity necessary
for charging an electric vehicle's battery can burden the environment. THIS DOESN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP WITH CONSUMER BUYING PREFERENCES
(E) Some family vehicles are used primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips, such as to do
errands. 'SOME' NARROWS THE SCOPE. WE NEED A REASON THAT WILL AFFECT ALL BUYERS

Hope this helps!

Zaara

I could not understand how A is irrelevant? The plan is to overcome the obstacle which is cars no use for extended trip and if the cars are in fact not needed for such trip than this plan will not work. I know I am missing something, can you explain a bit more?

[saptadeepc]

Here we need to find a reason that will make the purchase of electric cars unattractive for all prospective buyers.

(A) Many electric vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips. IRRELEVANT
(B) Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week, the cost to the producer of making good
the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles. CORRECT. HENCE. COST IS A DETERRENT
(C) The relatively long time it takes to recharge the battery of an electric vehicle can easily be fitted into the STRENGTHEN RATHER THAN WEAKEN
regular patterns of car use characteristic of commuters.
(D) Although electric vehicles are essentially emission-free in actual use, generating the electricity necessary
for charging an electric vehicle's battery can burden the environment. THIS DOESN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP WITH CONSUMER BUYING PREFERENCES
(E) Some family vehicles are used primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips, such as to do
errands. 'SOME' NARROWS THE SCOPE. WE NEED A REASON THAT WILL AFFECT ALL BUYERS

Hope this helps!

Zaara

I could not understand how A is irrelevant? The plan is to overcome the obstacle which is cars no use for extended trip and if the cars are in fact not needed for such trip than this plan will not work. I know I am missing something, can you explain a bit more?

Many electric vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips.

If the electric vehicles that are used for commercial purposes NOT needed for extended trips, then the electric car will reach 1000 miles very slowly. This is what the producer wants !

It infact supports the producer's idea.

[RonPurewal]

I just cannot understand this part quite well. From my perspective, the proposal provides a solution to offset the weakness of the electric cars though the company cannot solve the problem totally.

that's the original argument. did you mean to summarize the original argument?
if not, then what is "your perspective"? (i don't see a perspective here other than the original one.)

And does it really counters when we pick out the right answer? I mean, I can understand "expensive" reason and pick out B.

i'm sorry, but i don't understand what you are saying here.

[RonPurewal]

I could not understand how A is irrelevant? The plan is to overcome the obstacle which is cars no use for extended trip and if the cars are in fact not needed for such trip than this plan will not work. I know I am missing something, can you explain a bit more?

read the first sentence of the argument again. that sentence states the problem that the manufacturer is trying to mitigate: people are complaining that they can't take the electric cars on extended trips.

choice (a) just describes a subset of people who don't need to take the extended trips -- i.e., people who don't have the aforementioned problem at all. since those people don't have the problem in the first place, there is no need to take them into account in considering any plan to remedy the problem.

analogy:
if i put forward some plan to decrease obesity among americans, "lots of americans are not obese in the first place" does not, and cannot, weaken my plan -- the non-obese americans are irrelevant to the success or failure of the plan.

[garryrother]

Hi,

I do not contest the validity of the OA since this is the best of the rest(and I selected it too). However, I am not sure how it really weakens the argument.

The crux of the conclusion is "make purchasing electric vehicles more attractive to commuters". Now producers are bounded by the technological limitations and hence adopt a different route. They entice customers by making certain offers. The 3 day rental may serve the purpose of occasional trip. This offer does have a chance of success at least in the short run.

The OA talks about increase in the net cost of each vehicle. This will eat into profits of the producers, but the conclusion is served. Who cares about producers profits as far as the argument is concerned?
Any insight please?

Thanks,
Garry

[tim]

Think about things from the perspective of the producers of the vehicles. Are they really going to absorb the extra costs and be happy about it? No, they're much more likely to raise the price of the car (which is hinted at in the answer choice). If the price is higher, the vehicle definitely will be less attractive to consumers.

[maggiegecby]

Think about things from the perspective of the producers of the vehicles. Are they really going to absorb the extra costs and be happy about it? No, they're much more likely to raise the price of the car (which is hinted at in the answer choice). If the price is higher, the vehicle definitely will be less attractive to consumers.

are you saying that the producer will pass the cost to consumers by raising price? so that's why this offer makes the electric vehicles more expensive and less people will be attracted?
then B also states that "Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week", is this relevant? or why does this weaken the argument?

thanks!

[RonPurewal]

are you saying that the producer will pass the cost to consumers by raising price? so that's why this offer makes the electric vehicles more expensive and less people will be attracted?

this is exactly what you have to infer here.

the answer choice actually makes this quite explicit, by referring to "add[ing] considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles". the only people buying electric vehicles in this passage are the consumers, so there's only one thing that could possibly mean (i.e., what you just wrote).

then B also states that "Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week", is this relevant? or why does this weaken the argument?

that part is not the point; the point is that the result will endanger the plan.
remember, you have only one focus in these problems: how do these things affect the issue? if something doesn't affect the issue, you can ignore it.

e.g., here's an argument:
my friend has started eating 200 fewer calories per day. therefore, he should lose weight.

if i tell you Because of a recent shoulder surgery, my friend will have to stop swimming for a few months ... then that weakens the argument, since reduced exercise works against the idea of weight loss. the notion of shoulder surgery is irrelevant, since that's not the part that affects the issue.

[lemonperb]

Hello GMAT instructors,

E:Some family vehicles are used primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips, such as to do errands
Is E wrong because it addresses "some family", which narrows the scope?

So I would it be right to correct E to" most families"?
most families vehicles are used primarily not for commuting...,
->there is no demand for the electric vehicle.
Therefore the plan cannot work out.

Or am I wrong because I have rejected the premise "A major impediment to wide acceptance of electric vehicles even on the part of people who use their cars almost exclusively for commuting is the inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips. ", which means most family have strong demand for extended trips.

[RonPurewal]

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).