11{2[3(11)35]}> Some politicians claim to support the environment in speeches they make around the country. However, to get to those speeches they ride in gas guzzling, pollution creating private planes. They therefore clearly don’t believe a word of what they say and are actually making the environmental problem worse.
Which one of the following, if true, would best weaken the argument above?
Improvements to the environment brought about through the politicians’ public support of environmental regulations more than offset the damage done to the environment by the politicians’ private planes.
What following??
Some politicians claim to support the environment in speeches they make around the country. However, to get to those speeches they ride in gas guzzling, pollution creating private planes. They therefore clearly don’t believe a word of what they say and are actually making the environmental problem worse
To weaken the argument, we need to find a statement that challenges the claim made in the argument. Let's evaluate each option:
Option A: Some politicians donate a portion of the money they earn from speeches to environmental organizations.
Explanation: This fact does not directly challenge the argument. Even if politicians donate money, it does not address the issue of their use of gas-guzzling planes.
Option B: The private planes used by politicians have advanced technology that minimizes pollution.
Explanation: This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the private planes used by politicians have advanced technology, which reduces pollution. If the planes are equipped with such technology, it would contradict the claim that politicians are making the environmental problem worse.
Option C: The politicians often carpool with each other to their speeches.
Explanation: This option does not weaken the argument since it does not address the politicians' use of gas-guzzling planes.
Option D: The politicians frequently engage in environmental initiatives and advocate for environmental policies.
Explanation: This option does not directly challenge the argument; it suggests that politicians are involved in environmental initiatives. However, it does not address their contradictory actions when it comes to transportation.
Option E: The politicians purchase carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon emissions from flying.
Explanation: This option weakens the argument by suggesting that politicians buy carbon offsets to compensate for the environmental impact of their flights. By purchasing carbon offsets, they are taking steps to mitigate the pollution caused by their private planes.
In conclusion, option E, which mentions that politicians purchase carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon emissions from flying, is the best choice to weaken the argument.