mm007 wrote:
In response to the increasing cost of producing energy through traditional means, such as combustion, many utility companies have begun investing in renewable energy sources, chiefly wind and solar power, hoping someday to rely on them completely and thus lower energy costs. The utility companies claim that although these sources require significant initial capital investment, they will provide stable energy supplies at low cost. As a result, these sources will be less risky for the utilities than nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil, and coal, whose prices can fluctuate dramatically according to availability.
The claim of the utility companies presupposes which of the following?
(A) The public will embrace the development of wind and solar power.
(B) No new deposits of gas, oil, and coal will be discovered in the near future.
(C) Weather patterns are consistent and predictable.
(D) The necessary technology for conversion to wind and solar power is not more expensive than the technology needed to create energy through combustion.
(E) Obtaining energy from nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil and coal, cannot be made less risky.
PREMISE: Many investing in renewables (to save $)
PREMISE: Renewables need big investment, but energy is stable/cheap
CONCLUSION: Renewables less risky
Let's apply the NEGATION TECHNIQUE to see which answer choice, when negated, destroys the conclusion
(A) The public will NOT embrace the development of wind and solar power.
Does this destroy the conclusion that Renewables less risky?
Not really. The conclusion is all about the ides that Renewables are less risky.
ELIMINATE A
(B) New deposits of gas, oil, and coal WILL be discovered in the near future.
Does this destroy the conclusion that Renewables less risky?
No. The argument states that it's the fluctuation of gas, oil, and coal prices that makes renewables more attractive.
ELIMINATE B
(C) Weather patterns are NOT consistent and predictable.
Does this destroy the conclusion that Renewables less risky?
YES!
If wind and sunlight are not consistent and predictable, then the energy will not be consistent and predictable.
This destroys the conclusion.
KEEP C
(D) The necessary technology for conversion to wind and solar power IS more expensive than the technology needed to create energy through combustion.
Does this destroy the conclusion that Renewables less risky?
No. The passage already states that renewable energies require significant initial capital investment.
ELIMINATE D
(E) Obtaining energy from nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil and coal, CAN be made less risky.
Does this destroy the conclusion that Renewables less risky?
No. The issue here isn't that obtaining energy from oil and gas is risky. Is the availability (and the resulting price fluctuations) that is risky.
ELIMINATE E
Best answer: C
Cheers,
Brent