Passage Summary: Albert thinks we don't need pollution rules because cancer isn't proven; Erin counters that pollution kills people via heart and lung disease anyway.

Conclusion: Implementing the new emissions regulations will prevent thousands of deaths.

Reasoning: Scientists attribute many deaths from lung and heart disease to PAHs, regardless of the unproven cancer link.

Analysis: To weaken Erin's counter-argument, Albert needs to show that the regulations won't actually achieve the life-saving results she predicts. Perhaps the regulations don't target the specific types of PAHs that cause heart disease, or maybe the reduction in emissions is too small to impact mortality rates. Look for an answer that suggests a disconnect between the proposed regulations and the actual prevention of those 10,000 deaths.