We need to find what the author does NOT say about electric cars. Let us trace through the passage to see what's actually mentioned. From passage: "instead of oil reserves, the rarest materials for batteries would make undeserving despots and their dynasties fantastically rich" From passage: "The air in cities would once more be breathable and their streets as quiet as those of Venice" From passage: "Traffic jams will be abolished only when the private car becomes a public utility" The author talks about electric cars evolving into something bigger -> autonomous shared vehicles -> but he doesn't directly say that electric cars themselves will undermine driver autonomy.

Let's check each option against what the author actually says: 🟢 Option 1 -> mentioned -> author clearly states rare battery materials will enrich new despots 🟢 Option 2 -> mentioned -> author says air will be "breathable" and streets "quiet as Venice" 🟢 Option 3 -> mentioned -> author says traffic jams will only be abolished when cars become public utilities, meaning electric cars alone won't eliminate jams 🔴 Option 4 -> not mentioned -> author talks about autonomy being undermined by future autonomous cars, not specifically by electric cars themselves

The key confusion here is between electric cars vs autonomous cars. The author describes a progression: electric cars -> sensor-equipped cars -> fully autonomous shared vehicles. When discussing undermined autonomy, the author is talking about the final stage (autonomous shared cars), not electric cars specifically. He presents electric cars as just the first step in this evolution. 🟠 Option 1 -> clearly stated -> despots will get rich from battery materials 🟠 Option 2 -> clearly stated -> cleaner air and quieter streets 🟠 Option 3 -> clearly stated -> traffic jams won't be solved by electric cars alone 🟢 Option 4 is correct -> the author doesn't say electric cars themselves will undermine autonomy - he saves that point for discussing fully autonomous vehicles

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts