City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5

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.