Although many customers do not make a sufficient effort to conserve wa

Hi,
I believe you have understood the question incorrectly. The question asks which point if true would support the current policies of the water companies? i.e. those policies which encourage excessive use of water.
If you are confused between 2 statements which could be probable conclusions, name them A & B & analyze if A is because of B or B is because of A.
The statement which is dependent on the other will usually not be a conclusion.
Let us say in this question statement A is: Company policies encourage excessive water use, Statement B is: Conservation of water is possible only if companies change their practices. Now A is what the author or the passage wants us to believe. B is only possible if A is true. Therefore, A is the conclusion.

I hope all this made some sense?

Hey OhsostudiousMJ,
As you say, the argument is that 'attempts at conservation will succeed only if water companies change their practices... that encourage excessive consumption of water'.
You are asked to support this argument, meaning that you need to provide evidence that its reasoning is correct.
How can you support the reasoning that the 'only way' that consumption will be reduced is if companies change their practices?
By showing that the practices directly cause the problem (of consumption), and therefore that you must change the practices if you want to fix the problem (of consumption).
This is exactly what (A) does, and is sufficient to explain why it is correct.

Hope that helps,
David

Hi David,

If the cost per customer decreases, customers will be more encouraged to consume excessive water, and this connects the argument emphasizing that water companies encourage excessive use of water and that they should change their practice, as a conclusion.

Is my understanding right? Is this what you're trying to explain it to me?

Sort of, though you must take care with your words - the argument isn't 'emphasizing' anything, rather it is *claiming* that the policies directly cause excessive use.
Additionally, the conclusion isn't that they 'should' change their practice, but that they *must* change their practices.
(A) supports the reasoning by providing evidence that 'policies cause excessive use' is true.

Hi DavidTutorexamPAL generis VeritasKarishma

Is below an example of formal logic:
ONLY IF companies change policy (cause in future) -> water will be conserved (effect)
So,
Current company policy -> wastage of water

It is frustrating to select C as OA and not able to understand the argument.
My approach:
If companies change policies -> more water will be conserved.
C says the companies save water during drought period (an example of policy)
Effect: During non-drought period, more water will be available for use.
(Correct since I have to strengthen how water can be conserved)
What did I miss?

Hey adkikani,

The logic is indeed centered on the word 'only'.
Formally, 'only' implies that the set of events which include 'conserving water' is a subset of the set of events which include 'changing policies'
It is common to imagine this as one circle drawn inside another: the inner circle represents events in which water is conserved and the outer circle represents events in which policies are changed.
You can write this as "Conserving water requires changing policies" or as "Changing policies is a necessary condition for conserving water."

One way to support this argument is to show that the policies directly cause water to be wasted, implying that a change in policy is required for water to be conserved.

Note that (C) is the opposite of what we need: it explains why current policies reduce water wastage.

Ques: Which of the following, if true, would most strongly support the view above?

What is the view above?
That water companies must also be held responsible for wasteful consumption. Their policies encourage excessive water use, and attempts at conservation will succeed only if the water companies change their practices.

The view is that water companies' policies encourage excessive water use and only if these policies are changed, can water conservation happen.

How can we support this view? By showing that water companies' policies do encourage excessive water use.

A. Most water companies reduce the cost per unit of water as the amount of water used by a customer increases.

So this says that the more water you consume, cheaper it will be.
Say, if you consume 100 gallons, cost is $2/gallon (total cost is $200)
If you consume 150 gallons, cost is $1.5/gallon or even $1/gallon (total cost is $225 or $150)
and so on...
Though it doesn't say that consuming extra water reduces the overall cost, it does say that consuming more water makes the water per unit cheaper. Hold on to this. So this policy certainly seems to encourage excessive use of water.

B. Most water companies keep detailed records of the quantity of water used by different customers.

Doesn't say why people may be encouraged to use water excessively due to this policy.

C. Most water companies severely curtail the use of water during periods of drought.

This is a good policy that conserves water during drought. What do the companies do when there is no drought, we don't know. This policy doesn't tell us how the companies encourage excessive use of water.

D. Federal authorities limit the range of policies that can be enforced by the water companies.

How federal authorities impact the actual policies implemented, we don't know.

E. The price per unit of water charged by the water companies has risen steadily in the last 10 years.

Water has become more expensive over time. That does not show that companies' policies encourage wastage of water.

Only option (A) has merit. Answer (A)

Dear VeritasKarishma AjiteshArun

Is choice A. an inference from the passage?

The passage has already stated that Their own policies, in fact, encourage excessive water use. I think we have to take that statement as a premise/fact.
How could I know that Their own policies, in fact, encourage excessive water use is the view of the author, not the premise/fact?

Thank you in advance!

Hi varotkorn,

1. We shouldn't look at option A as an inference. An inference is something that we can derive from the other statements, and we cannot go from "their own policies, in fact, encourage excessive water use" to "most water companies reduce the cost per unit of water as the amount of water used by a customer increases". That is, from a general statement about their policies, we cannot get the details of a specific policy.

We can look at option A as (additional) support.

2. You are right about "their own policies, in fact, encourage excessive water use". That bit is part of the support.

Dear AjiteshArun,

Thank you for your reply

However, what really confuses me is that we have to take their own policies, in fact, encourage excessive water use as true. And option A just repeats the premise that their own policies, in fact, encourage excessive water use is true.

Option A. only supports the premise (which is already taken as true).

So, an option that states that one of the given premises is true can be a strengthener?


Thank you in advance!

Hi varotkorn,

Absolutely! It is very common for people to say one (very general) thing, and then follow that up with specific examples that help others believe that the general claim is true.

egmat GMATNinja
Can you please provide your explanation on this ques?