Which is why I used a logical conjunction.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/4a4dc6ca-en/1/3/3/index....

If one thought EVs did something help with one of the two, they'd have omitted it from the list of things "EVs do nothing" to help with.

Something that helps with X cannot be said to do nothing to help with "the problem of X and Y". If they reduce it for tires, then they do reduce the problem of "particulate matter pollution from tires and breaks" - proportionally to how much the latter contributes to said problem.

Um, no.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-241-logic-i-fall-2009/

Good luck.

And the link to a logic course somehow proves you right for saying "EVs do nothing to reduce particulate matter pollution from tires and breaks"?

Dude, you just pulled the weird-ass argument about "that's why I used a conjuction" in a hail Mary attempt to pretend you already knew about them reducing break pollution.

As if any person who actually knew EVs reduce particulate matter pollution from breaks would ever say: "EVs do nothing to reduce particulate matter pollution from tires and breaks" - implying they meant "they don't reduce BOTH" all along.

Seriously, sign up for the course. You would benefit.

EVs don't do that, regen braking does that. Regen braking can be fitted to hybrid or ICE cars.