Question:

Critical Reasoning -- Strengthen Argument: 
"Cities with higher public-transport usage typically experience lower air pollution levels." 

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? 

  1. Cars emit significantly more pollutants per passenger compared to public buses. 
  2. Public transport systems are cheaper than personal vehicles. 
  3. People prefer using their own vehicles for convenience.
  4. Pollution levels vary with weather conditions.

Show Hint

To strengthen an argument, choose the option that provides direct evidence supporting the causal link or reduces alternative explanations.
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution - 1

Approach: To strengthen, find the option that supplies the missing mechanism \(--\) the reason WHY more public transport would mean less pollution.

Step 1: The claim is a correlation: more public-transport use \(\to\) lower air pollution. A strengthener should explain the causal link, ideally showing public transport is the cleaner option.

Step 2: Option 1 \(--\) "cars emit significantly more pollutants per passenger than buses" \(--\) gives exactly that mechanism. If shifting riders from cars to buses cuts per-passenger emissions, then higher public-transport usage genuinely lowers pollution. The link is reinforced.

Step 3: Eliminate. Option 2 (public transport is cheaper) explains adoption, not pollution \(--\) out of scope for the pollution claim. Option 3 (people prefer their own vehicles) slightly weakens, if anything. Option 4 (pollution varies with weather) introduces an alternative cause, which weakens the transport-pollution link rather than strengthening it.

Strongest support: \( \text{Option 1} \)
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

Approach (bridge-the-gap): The argument only states a correlation, more public-transport usage goes with lower pollution. There is a gap, nothing yet explains why that would be true. A strengthener should supply the missing premise that turns the correlation into a believable cause.

Think of the argument as an incomplete syllogism:
Premise 1 (given): Cities with higher public-transport usage have lower air pollution.
Premise 2 (missing): ?
Conclusion: Public transport use lowers pollution.

Option 1, “cars emit significantly more pollutants per passenger than buses,” is precisely the missing premise. Insert it, and the syllogism closes: if cars pollute more per rider, then a city where more people ride buses instead of driving genuinely has fewer emissions, exactly the conclusion. None of the other options can plug this gap, they talk about cost, personal preference, or weather, none of which connects transit share to actual emissions.

Strongest support: Option 1.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CAT Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) Questions

View More Questions

Top CAT Critical Reasoning Questions

View More Questions