thanhmaitran wrote:
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 percent a year, and there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases. We must therefore begin to curtail usage, which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.
The city council member's proposal assumes which of the following?
(A) Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
(B) No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
(C) Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
(D) Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
(E) City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.
ID - CR08239
Solutionpassage analysis City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 percent a year,A city council member presents a fact here. The demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 % every year.
and there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.It is also given that there is no more space to build additional power plants to meet the growing demands for electricity.
We must therefore begin to curtail usage,So, the only recourse is to start reducing the usage of electricity.
which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.For this, the council member proposes passing laws that need all city departments to start using energy-conservation measures.
Conclusion: There is a need to pass ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments because there is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases
pre-thinking Falsification questionIn what scenario would there be no need to pass ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments?
Given that
The demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 % every year.
There is no more space to build additional power plants
Thought ProcessVery simply put the council member believes that since we have not more space to build more power plants, we need to reduce electricity usage. So, he clearly believes one thing, that there is no other way to meet the growing electricity demand except to curtail usage.
Falsification conditionWhat if there was a way – Could we increase the capacity of electricity generation of the existing power plants so as to meet the increasing demand for electricity?
In that case, we would not need to build more power plants for which we do not have any more space. And then our need for passing ordinances requiring energy conservation measures will be nullified.
AssumptionThe capacity of electricity generation of the existing power plants cannot be increased in order to meet the increasing demand for electricity.
Answer Choice AnalysisAThis is in line with our pre-thinking assumption. The existing power plants cannot handle all of the growing demand for electricity or in other words, the existing power plants cannot be utilized to generate more electricity and we cannot build more power plants. Therefore, we have to pass rules for energy conservation measures.
Hence, this is the correct answer.
BThis means that there are no city departments that practice energy-conservation measures of their own accord.
Let us say that there are some city departments that are using energy-conservation measures of their own accord. But still there could exist a further need to curb electricity usage in order to meet the growing demand. So, we see that the negation does not break down our conclusion. It is not a must be true idea.
Hence, it is not the correct answer.
CThis option says that the ordinances that are designed to conserve energy will not have a negative economic outcome for the city.
The motive of the ordinances is to curtail electricity usage in order to meet the growing electricity demand. If that has a negative economic impact on the city, will the council not implement the ordinances? The council believes there is no other way to increase the amount of available electricity. Maybe the council has weighed the pros and cons and decided the pros are more than the cons. This option need not be true for the conclusion to hold true.
Hence, it is not the answer.
DLet us say the residential consumers are responsible for the increase in the demand for electricity. But it is possible that the council thinks that their consumption cannot be reduced. They might be of the opinion that the city departments are overusing electricity and hence need ordinances. Does the negation break down my conclusion? No.
Hence, it is not the correct answer.
EThis option means that once the city departments start conserving energy, they will set a good example to be followed by residential and industrial consumers of electricity.
This option might be a future motive of the ordinances, but it cannot be the must-be-true thought behind the ordinances.
Let us say the residential and industrial consumers of electricity do not follow the example set by the city council, does it mean we should not pass the ordinances for the conservation of energy? No.
Hence, this is not the correct option.
_________________