I don't understand why it's okay to assume that the power for the electric cars must come from dams, nuclear, or coal plants. What about solar or wind power? Does anybody have any idea why this can be assumed?

People may easily believe into things which contradict to what those people mainain. Believes by definition are rarely supported by logic.

Mike has a good handle on this.

The argument claims that power must come from nuclear or coal if it does not come from hydro-electric dams. We are then asked to determine which answer choice follows from THE ARGUMENT. Whether the argument contains accurate info or not is irrelevant.

When you're answering LSAT questions, do NOT consider whether or not the info you're reading is accurate. Just take the argument at face value. If it so happened that solar became a major source of power in 2013, you should still be able to answer this question correctly.

The answer becomes indiscernibly obvious if one correctly construes the second to last sentence and then compares it with the first sentence. The second to last sentence clearly states that all three of the mentioned power sources for electric cars are detrimental to the environment. Whereas the first sentence implies that the proponents of the electric car think it will be a solution to the environmental problem.

For you, Ed, allow me to draw a quote from the text to help you understand that the first sentence explicitly states the proponents' view on the matter, "Proponents of the electric car maintain...will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions". Reread the quote from the actual first sentence of the text until you have an epiphany.

I also disagree with answer A and cant understand why its not E. Yes the passage does state that using coal/nuclear power produce environmental damage, but I dont see any evidence in the passage to insinuate that the new electricity generated to power the new cars will have a "Worse" effect on the environment than keeping current fuel burning vehicles (which are also bad for the environment) would have. Additionally, you would also need to investigate what the reduced demand in auto fuel would have on the environment (as that also degrades the environment) and compare all those factors to creating additional electricity from coal/nuclear power plants for electric car batteries before you can conclude that the electric car would have a "worse" effect on the environment, which is why I think at best, best on the evidence on the passage you can conclude "e.". Why is E wrong?

This is exactly what i was thinking and I don't understand why the answer is not E? Like you guys have previously mentioned, we can't question the truthfulness of any given facts, we take them as they are. By the same reason, we can't add any thing new unless otherwise given and there is nothing stated as to the fact that whether the nuclear or coal produced power is going to make it he pollution worse. It is not about a general knowledge about which one of these power sources would result in higher degree of pollution, but we have to stick to only The facts given in the premise!!!

Bereket,
After taking the whole test again, I think I finally understand this question. The trick here is not that it will make "pollution worse" rather the key words are worse than "previously thought." Nothing to do with actually making it worse, but actually not as good as the proponents thought it would be. Tricky wording....

The assumption that nuclear and coal fire plants produces 'worse' environmental damage than emissions from gas cars are made. What is the basis of this assumption?

Ah, thank you Jorge.

Worse 'enironmental consquencs than it's proponents believed.'

not

Worse 'environmental consquence.'

I do not believe it follows that "A". Considering only the premises, it could be that proponents know all the facts in addition to having the information that enviromental damages will still be reduced.