Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 23:00 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 23:00
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
505-555 Level|   Assumption|                              
User avatar
09173140521
User avatar
Joined: 09 May 2017
Last visit: 03 Jul 2025
Posts: 175
Own Kudos:
365
Given Kudos: 778
Location: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
GMAT 1: 430 Q39 V12
GMAT 1: 430 Q39 V12
Posts: 175
Kudos: 365
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 30 Aug 2019, 22:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
i do not know why B is incorrect .! answer A just paraphrase the sentence and is self evident ! could you explain ?
User avatar
nightblade354
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,781
Own Kudos:
6,819
Given Kudos: 3,304
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Darden '25 (M)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: Darden '25 (M)
Posts: 1,781
Kudos: 6,819
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 31 Aug 2019, 01:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
09173140521
i do not know why B is incorrect .! answer A just paraphrase the sentence and is self evident ! could you explain ?
Show more

You need to review your premise and conclusion indicators. The sentence (a) refers to is a premise of the argument. If these ideas are foreign to you, read a CR book or take a class to build these skills. Do not attempt further questions.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
ArathyA
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2020
Last visit: 09 Oct 2024
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
67
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 26
Kudos: 67
 [1]
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 06 Apr 2020, 04:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post

Passage Analysis


• City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 percent a year,
    o The city council member, who is the author, explains that the electricity demand in the city has been increasing by 1.5 percent each year.

• and there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.
    o To meet the upcoming increase of demand, additional powerplants will be required but this is not a solution since there is no extra space to make this way possible.

• We must therefore begin to curtail usage, which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.
    o The author advocates controlling the usage of electric power.
    o This is the reason she puts forward a proposal to pass ordinances that makes steps for energy-conservation a requirement in all city departments.

Conclusion: Ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments should be passed if the supply of electricity in the city should continue to meet the demand.

Question Stem Analysis
The city council member’s proposal is based on certain assumptions, which we have to identify.

Pre-thinking


Falsification Question
In what scenario is it possible that the supply of electricity in the city will continue to meet the demand without passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments?
Given that
    • Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 percent a year.
    • There is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

Thought Process
The author puts forward the proposal because steps need to be taken to rein in the rate of energy usage in the city to avoid energy deficit. The lack of space to build new powerplants is clear from the passage but nothing is said of upgradation of the existing plants. Also, other electric power production methods that do not consume as much space as whole new powerplants are not mentioned. Only if such options are ruled out will curtailing usage to avoid deficit become a necessary step.

Falsification condition#1
What if the current running power plants could be upgraded to increase their capacity?
In that case the facts hold but the conclusion breaks down.
Assumption#1
The existing power plants’ capacity cannot be sufficiently upgraded to meet the future needs.

Falsification condition#2
If there are other methods which don’t consume significantly large amount of space to produce electricity, will there be any need to curtail usage to check the future energy deficit? In that case also the conclusion breaks down.
Assumption#2
Alternative methods of power production which don’t require a significant amount of space are not possible in this case.

Answer Choice Analysis


(A) Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all the projected increase in demand for electricity.
CORRECT
This assumption is necessary for the conclusion to be valid and follows our line of pre-thinking. Hence this is the correct answer.

(B) No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
INCORRECT
This is not a relevant assumption for the conclusion to hold true. The proposal will still be relevant even if some of departments did implement energy conservation measures voluntarily.

(C) Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
INCORRECT
Economic consequences are not a factor regarding this proposal. Even if this is the case, as long as the premise of the argument stays true, the proposal will still be relevant. Hence this is a wrong answer choice.

(D) Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
INCORRECT
This assumption is not needed for passing the ordinance to curtail electricity usage of city departments. There may exist more than one responsible player. Hence, this answer is not correct.

(E) City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.
INCORRECT
This assumption is not necessary for the conclusion to hold. Irrespective of the setting of successful examples, curtailing usage is the primary aim of the proposed ordinances. Hence this cannot be the correct answer.
User avatar
woohoo921
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Last visit: 17 Mar 2023
Posts: 516
Own Kudos:
142
Given Kudos: 623
Posts: 516
Kudos: 142
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 28 Feb 2022, 20:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am a bit confused on applying the negation technique for Choice B.

From my understanding of the negation technique, you must flip the statement around completely: "City departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily."

However, the OG explanation says, "the proposed ordinances could still be necessary even if one city department had voluntarily implemented energy-conservation measures." When using the negation technique, doesn't it have to be all or nothing... either NO city departments had done so or ALL city departments had done so? How can we go from NONE to SOME (based on the OG's use of even if one city department)?

Many thanks!
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [2]
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 01 Mar 2022, 05:30
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
woohoo921
I am a bit confused on applying the negation technique for Choice B.

From my understanding of the negation technique, you must flip the statement around completely: "City departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily."

However, the OG explanation says, "the proposed ordinances could still be necessary even if one city department had voluntarily implemented energy-conservation measures." When using the negation technique, doesn't it have to be all or nothing... either NO city departments had done so or ALL city departments had done so? How can we go from NONE to SOME (based on the OG's use of even if one city department)?

Many thanks!
Show more
No, woohoo921, that is not the way negation works (and I do not even use the method). I would negate none, in reference to a quantity, to at least one. I will put together a little list—not necessarily GMAT™-specific—to help you and, possibly, others. In most cases, I would either add or remove a not to keep from distorting the meaning, and I would always suggest leaning on the context of the sentence for guidance.

all → not all (could be one, some, several, or the majority)
any → not any (perhaps a specific one)
certain → uncertain
(a) few → not (a) few (could be none or a lot)
(a) majority → not (a) majority (less than fifty percent)
nobody → somebody (at least one person, could be more)
none → at least one
nothing → something
rare → not rare (may not be widespread)
seldom → not seldom (may not be often)
several → not several (could be just one or even none)
some → not some (could be one or none)
Again, I would suggest picking up on contextual clues to give shape to your negation, rather than applying some mechanical rule. The above list should get you started, though. Just watch out for inaccurate assumptions or associations (such as none → all). If you are unsure how to negate, the safest bet is probably to add or remove a not or to simply make sense of the answer choice as written.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
User avatar
PriyamRathor
User avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2021
Last visit: 24 May 2024
Posts: 152
Own Kudos:
119
Given Kudos: 167
Location: India
WE:Corporate Finance (Accounting)
Posts: 152
Kudos: 119
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 22 Sep 2022, 07:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
thanhmaitran
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

Show Spoiler
Conserving Electricity

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word assumes in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

CCM: elec. demand ↑ + no space for new plants

usage must ↓

plan: conserv. ords. in city depts

This argument describes a proposed plan. Note that the city council member claims that the city must begin to curtail usage. In the context of an Assumption problem, when you spot a word like must or always, consider whether the claim might be overly strong. It’s possible that there are other solutions to the energy problem, besides forcing the city to curtail usage.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Assumption questions, the goal is to find an answer that must be true in order for the logic of the argument to be reasonable. In this case, the answer will state something that must be assumed to be true before the proposed plan to curtail usage can be accepted.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT. This is a necessary part of the logic of the argument. In order to accept the plan for energy conservation, it’s necessary to first know that energy conservation is actually needed. If the existing plants were able to handle the projected increase in demand, then no conservation would be needed.

(B) Use the Negation Test on this answer choice, since it already includes one negative. Negation: some city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily. If that’s the case, the conclusion could still make sense: maybe some city departments have implemented these measures, but this won’t save enough energy and other departments will require ordinances to convince them to conserve.

(C) This does strengthen the argument, since a plan without negative economic consequences is more likely to succeed. However, since it’s not necessarily true, it isn’t an assumption. Even a plan with some negative economic consequences could be the correct choice.

(D) Regardless of how much energy the city departments are currently using, decreasing their energy usage would reduce the overall energy usage of the city.

(E) The argument does not make any claims about whether residential and industrial customers need to reduce their energy usage. The proposal relates only to whether city departments should reduce their energy usage.
Show more

Hi Experts,
KarishmaB
AnthonyRitz
MartyTargetTestPrep,
GMATNinja


I cannot understand Why Choice A is the correct answer.

Please find below my reasoning: -

Step1 : Find What the Question Stem is asking.

The city council member's proposal assumes which of the following?

So we need to find what the CCM's proposal assume.

Step2: What is the proposal ?

We must therefore begin to curtail usage, which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.

Step3 : Pre-think (if you can)

So, the CCM assumes that passing ordinances requiring energy conservation measure in all city departments will lead to conservation of energy.
What if city departments are not responsible for increase in recent demand ?
Then in that case the proposal will fail.

Step4 : Taking the pre-thought along go for POE

thanhmaitran
(A) Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Show more

Choice A is Irrelevant to the CCM's proposal. We are not concerned with whether existing power plants do have the capacity or donot have the capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand. We are concerned with the PROPOSAL of the CCM

thanhmaitran
(D) Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
Show more

If we negate choice D then it will break down the proposal because if RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS are responsible for the recent increase in demand for electricity then passing an ordinance requiring all CITY DEPARTMENT will not lead to the desired result.

Thanks.
User avatar
AnthonyRitz
User avatar
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 238
Own Kudos:
427
 [3]
Given Kudos: 169
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 238
Kudos: 427
 [3]
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 23 Sep 2022, 08:24
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
PriyamRathor
Quote:
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.

...

Hi Experts,
KarishmaB
AnthonyRitz
MartyTargetTestPrep,
GMATNinja

I cannot understand Why Choice A is the correct answer.

...

thanhmaitran
(A) Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.

Choice A is Irrelevant to the CCM's proposal. We are not concerned with whether existing power plants do have the capacity or donot have the capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand. We are concerned with the PROPOSAL of the CCM

thanhmaitran
(D) Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.

If we negate choice D then it will break down the proposal because if RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS are responsible for the recent increase in demand for electricity then passing an ordinance requiring all CITY DEPARTMENT will not lead to the desired result.

Thanks.
Show more

Priyam,

One important point that you're missing is that electricity is fungible. That is, one "chunk" of electricity is as good as another, and electricity can presumably be rerouted freely between residential and city government use. Even if residential consumers are causing a shortage of electricity, austerity measures by city departments could address the shortfall. So it's unfortunate that you focused on the city departments as your key distinction here, because actually I don't think that distinction matters at all. That's why I don't want to pick D.

As for A, I find your abrupt dismissal confusing. You just said
Quote:
We are not concerned with whether existing power plants do have the capacity or donot have the capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand. We are concerned with the PROPOSAL of the CCM
Show more
But why? Why aren't we concerned with the capacity of the existing plants? Why doesn't this bear on the proposal, or its necessity? Note the intermediate conclusion here:

Quote:
We must therefore begin to curtail usage
Show more

If there's no shortage, because existing plans can handle the projected demand, then this intermediate conclusion would fail, right? And if it's not true that we must curtail usage, then why would we need the proposal to curtail usage by city departments? The whole argument falls apart if there's no shortage. That's the point of A, and the reason it's the right answer.

I hope this helps!
User avatar
PriyamRathor
User avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2021
Last visit: 24 May 2024
Posts: 152
Own Kudos:
119
Given Kudos: 167
Location: India
WE:Corporate Finance (Accounting)
Posts: 152
Kudos: 119
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 24 Sep 2022, 04:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AnthonyRitz
PriyamRathor
Quote:
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.

...

Hi Experts,
KarishmaB
AnthonyRitz
MartyTargetTestPrep,
GMATNinja

I cannot understand Why Choice A is the correct answer.

...

thanhmaitran
(A) Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.

Choice A is Irrelevant to the CCM's proposal. We are not concerned with whether existing power plants do have the capacity or donot have the capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand. We are concerned with the PROPOSAL of the CCM

thanhmaitran
(D) Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.

If we negate choice D then it will break down the proposal because if RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS are responsible for the recent increase in demand for electricity then passing an ordinance requiring all CITY DEPARTMENT will not lead to the desired result.

Thanks.

Priyam,

One important point that you're missing is that electricity is fungible. That is, one "chunk" of electricity is as good as another, and electricity can presumably be rerouted freely between residential and city government use. Even if residential consumers are causing a shortage of electricity, austerity measures by city departments could address the shortfall. So it's unfortunate that you focused on the city departments as your key distinction here, because actually I don't think that distinction matters at all. That's why I don't want to pick D.

As for A, I find your abrupt dismissal confusing. You just said
Quote:
We are not concerned with whether existing power plants do have the capacity or donot have the capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand. We are concerned with the PROPOSAL of the CCM
But why? Why aren't we concerned with the capacity of the existing plants? Why doesn't this bear on the proposal, or its necessity? Note the intermediate conclusion here:

Quote:
We must therefore begin to curtail usage

If there's no shortage, because existing plans can handle the projected demand, then this intermediate conclusion would fail, right? And if it's not true that we must curtail usage, then why would we need the proposal to curtail usage by city departments? The whole argument falls apart if there's no shortage. That's the point of A, and the reason it's the right answer.

I hope this helps!
Show more

Hi AnthonyRitz,
Thank you for your reply

I completely agree to your below point.
Quote:

One important point that you're missing is that electricity is fungible. That is, one "chunk" of electricity is as good as another, and electricity can presumably be rerouted freely between residential and city government use. Even if residential consumers are causing a shortage of electricity, austerity measures by city departments could address the shortfall.
Show more

I am explaining below my reason for abrupt dismissal of Choice A
Quote:
As for A, I find your abrupt dismissal confusing.
Show more

If the question had been "The argument assumes which of the following" ,
then I would have surely chosen Choice A

What's the point? or the Conclusion -We must therefore begin to curtail usage
Why So ? - there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases

But
Here the question is very specific "The city council member's proposal assumes which of the following?"

Here we are concerned with what the proposal assumes not what the argument assumes.

The point that the argument makes and the point/conclusion that the CCM's proposal makes-both are different.

Argument Point:-We must therefore begin to curtail usage
Proposal Point:- I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments

I hope I was able to explain my confusion.

Please guide if there is any gap in my understanding.

Thanks.
User avatar
AnthonyRitz
User avatar
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 238
Own Kudos:
427
 [1]
Given Kudos: 169
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 238
Kudos: 427
 [1]
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 24 Sep 2022, 08:14
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
PriyamRathor

Hi AnthonyRitz,
Thank you for your reply

I completely agree to your below point.
Quote:

One important point that you're missing is that electricity is fungible. That is, one "chunk" of electricity is as good as another, and electricity can presumably be rerouted freely between residential and city government use. Even if residential consumers are causing a shortage of electricity, austerity measures by city departments could address the shortfall.

I am explaining below my reason for abrupt dismissal of Choice A
Quote:
As for A, I find your abrupt dismissal confusing.

If the question had been "The argument assumes which of the following" ,
then I would have surely chosen Choice A

What's the point? or the Conclusion -We must therefore begin to curtail usage
Why So ? - there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases

But
Here the question is very specific "The city council member's proposal assumes which of the following?"

Here we are concerned with what the proposal assumes not what the argument assumes.

The point that the argument makes and the point/conclusion that the CCM's proposal makes-both are different.

Argument Point:-We must therefore begin to curtail usage
Proposal Point:- I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments

I hope I was able to explain my confusion.

Please guide if there is any gap in my understanding.

Thanks.
Show more

Priyam,

Thanks for explaining. I honestly didn't even notice the distinction between "the argument assumes" and "the proposal assumes." It's a good catch, and, as a general matter, I should have noticed it. So kudos for reading carefully. Your logic does make more sense now.

That said, I think the distinction is overblown. Perhaps the reason I didn't focus on it is simply that I view the argument in this case as a singular, unified chain of reasoning: "demand is increasing, and we can't increase supply" --> "we must curtail usage" --> "conservation measures."

In general, I would not be inclined to assume that large swaths of a strengthen/weaken/assumption question are a totally irrelevant red herring. I don't know if it's strictly impossible, but a question would have to do a lot to convince me that that was its intent. It feels too much like a "trick question" otherwise, and the GMAT isn't interested in that. So that's part of why my default assumption here was that the proposal at least intended to use the prior statements as its justification.

After all, that proposal only makes sense assuming we actually have a possible shortage. Otherwise, why are we proposing conservation measures? Put another way, the proposal must assume there exists a problem that needs solving. The negation of A says there isn't.
User avatar
Auror_07
User avatar
Joined: 02 May 2023
Last visit: 11 Nov 2025
Posts: 106
Own Kudos:
61
 [1]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
Schools: Tuck '26 (D) LBS '26 (D) Darden '27 (M) Johnson '27 (D) Ross '27 (WD)
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q88 V83 DI80
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q48 V40
GPA: 4.0
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Tuck '26 (D) LBS '26 (D) Darden '27 (M) Johnson '27 (D) Ross '27 (WD)
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q88 V83 DI80
GMAT 2: 720 Q48 V40
Posts: 106
Kudos: 61
 [1]
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 21 May 2023, 06:36
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is quite a unique question. Here the discussion is continued even after a conclusion is stated, and failing to see this is why many can get this wrong. The actual conclusion is that the usage has to be curtailed.

Passing the ordinance is just a plan to act on the conclusion drawn. In find the assumption question, it is vital to identify the conclusion and defend it. If you thought that passing the ordinance was the conclusion, you might end up picking B, because you might think that the passing of ordinance is necessary because energy conservation is not already practiced by any of the City Departments.

If you do correctly identify that the conclusion is to actually curtail the usage, then you can't pick any option other than A. If there is capacity to produce more electricity from the existing power plants, why would you think of curtailing the usage?

The key takeaway here is conclusion can be placed anywhere in the argument (sometimes even in the question stem), so do not go into any question with the notion that the conclusion is the last statement of the argument.
User avatar
stackskillz
User avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2022
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
13
Given Kudos: 165
Posts: 62
Kudos: 13
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 13 Apr 2024, 03:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conc: ­Plan  => Curtail usage - Demand for elec is increasing and no space to build additional power plants to meet future needs. 

(A) Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity - This option substantiates what's stated in the passage more, i.e., additional power plants are required to meet future needs, meaning current power plants don't have exisiting capacity to handle projected need. Keep.

(B) No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily - Have city dept. implemented energy conservation measures voluntarily or otherwise or if at all, doesn't concern the why the conclusion of the passage, i.e., plan to curtail usage. These results would answer the question was the plan successful, but not why the plan would be needed in the first place. Drop

(C) Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city. Whether passing the ordinance has positive or negative ramifications is outside the scope, since we're only concerned regarding justification of conservation measures not the impact. Drop

(D) Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity. This could explain a reason for increase (or not), not to be confused with reason for conservation. Drop

(E) City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity. Again, not related to the reason for conservation. Drop
User avatar
nosaj
User avatar
Joined: 01 Nov 2023
Last visit: 12 Jul 2025
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
30
Given Kudos: 77
Posts: 53
Kudos: 30
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 19 Aug 2024, 17:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
­Lots of great analysis above, hopefully below is additive. When I got down to the last two answers, I had jumped on Option B when negating because it weakens the effectiveness of the plan. However, Option A questions the necessity of the plan in general making it the right answer.

A) Existing power plans DO have the capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity
B) SOME city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily
User avatar
tribui
User avatar
Joined: 25 Dec 2022
Last visit: 30 Jul 2025
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
22
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 6
Kudos: 22
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 05 Sep 2024, 00:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nightblade354

Deadpool3
Dear GMATNinja, gmat1393, GMATNinjaTwo, nightblade354 egmat

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.

In the above, Could you please confirm what is the main point that author wants to point out.
To me, It seems that main Conclusion is "I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments. "
And "We must therefore begin to curtail usage" is sub-Conclusion which is supporting the above main Conclusion.

You are correct, but to avoid confusion in the future use the "because-therefore" test. It goes like this: You put because and therefore before the two phrases you want to compare. Whichever one makes sense is the one you stick with. And whichever clause has the therefore in front of it is your main conclusion.

S1: We must therefore begin to curtail usage
S2: Is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments

Scenario 1: Because we must begin to curtail usage, therefore I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments

Scenario 2: Because I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments, therefore we must begin to curtail usage

Now, which one is correct? Scenario 1. It makes far more sense. Which makes the "I propose" the main conclusion.
Show more
­Can someone GMATNinja, gmat1393, GMATNinjaTwo, nightblade354 egmat help clarify why, then, is A the answer and not D?

I agree with the above (quoted), that the plan (I propose passing ordinance ...) is the real conclusion. The "we must curtail usage" is only an intermediate conclusion.
Clearly, then, A is an assumption on which the intermediate conclusion depends.
D is an assumption on which the actual conclusion depends.
If residential consumers are responsible (= NEGATE the assumption) => then just putting requirements on the city departments is no longer sufficient to merit the plan. In that conclusions sentence, they seem to deliberately put the restriction on city departments only, so the implication (or assumption) is the city departments alone = mainly responsible. I know it's not explicitly written, but by meaning it's implied.
What's most bugging me is that the theory we are supposed to follow is that we are finding an assumption on which the conclusion depends, not the one on which the sub-conclusion depends.

Thank you,
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,835
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,835
Kudos: 986
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 05 Sep 2025, 08:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts