Statement — Electrically operated machines do not cause pollution.\nQuestion — Which inference is most reasonable to draw from the statement (without adding extra-world assumptions)?

Introduction / Context:
The stem states a causal/environmental claim exclusively about electrically operated machines: they do not cause pollution. We are to select the most reasonable inference that respects the scope of the statement and avoids sweeping claims about all machines or all energy sources.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Claim: If a machine is electrically operated, then it does not cause pollution (as per the statement’s simplified test-world).
• No information is given about non-electric machines, the electrical grid’s upstream effects, or the proportion of machines by energy type.
• We may, however, prefer non-polluting alternatives when the goal is to reduce direct machine-caused pollution.

Concept / Approach:
We should avoid universal quantifiers not supported by the statement. Options asserting “all machines are electric,” “no other energy exists,” or “most machines are electric” go beyond the data. A preference-based inference that aligns with the stated environmental benefit is the safest, policy-relevant choice.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Policy guidance often follows from property statements (non-polluting). Preferring the non-polluting option (when available) aligns with the premise without asserting universals or unknown quantities.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Reading a property statement as a census or exclusivity claim.

Final Answer:
Where feasible, electrically operated machines are preferable to use to reduce pollution.