GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 24 Sep 2018, 14:34

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2013
Posts: 26
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2015, 19:48
5
33
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

72% (01:24) correct 28% (01:44) wrong based on 2503 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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
Most Helpful Expert Reply
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
User avatar
B
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 319
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Dec 2015, 23:34
5
2
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 the 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.

Type: Assumption
Boil It Down: Ordinance -> Reduce consumption to meet demand increase
Missing Information: There is capacity for such a cut. There is no alternative way to obtain the necessary capacity for the increase.
Goal: Find the option that has to be true for the logic of the argument to work.

Yes, it has to be true that existing plants don't have sufficient capacity because if they did then this whole proposal is proven worthless.

Whether city departments have instituted electricity curtailing is totally irrelevant to the argument that this ordinance could save even more.

Whether there are negative economic consequences is irrelevant. Even if this plan resulted in negative consequences, it could still help achieve the ultimate conservation goals. That wouldn't disprove the merits of the plan, so this option is not required for the argument to hold.

Whether consumers are to blame for the increases is irrelevant to the likelihood of success of the plan for governments to trim usage to help cut energy consumption.

The argument also does not rest on the idea that these city departments will serve as a role model. Maybe they will, maybe they won't but that is just ot required by the council member's proposal.
_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."
Image

Image

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount


GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1244
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Aug 2015, 09:15
10
1
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.


Conclusion: We must therefore begin to curtail usage [because] there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

It is quite logical that existing power plants did not have capacity to meet demand increases but argument says nothing about it so we need to state this fact.

A. Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Correct. Negation test destroy the conclusion of argument: "Existing power plants do have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity." If they have capacity then we do need to curtail usage.

B. No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
Incorrect. Whether or not some departments already implement these measures does not cancel needness to curtail the usage.

C. Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so economic consequences are out of scope.

D. Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so who exactly create this increase demand is out of scope

E. City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.[/quote]
Incorrect. This fact does not impact the conclusion about needness to curtail energy usage.
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

General Discussion
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 205
Premium Member
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2015, 06:42
2
Harley1980 wrote:
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.


Conclusion: We must therefore begin to curtail usage [because] there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

It is quite logical that existing power plants did not have capacity to meet demand increases but argument says nothing about it so we need to state this fact.

A. Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Correct. Negation test destroy the conclusion of argument: "Existing power plants do have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity." If they have capacity then we do need to curtail usage.

B. No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
Incorrect. Whether or not some departments already implement these measures does not cancel needness to curtail the usage.

C. Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so economic consequences are out of scope.

D. Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so who exactly create this increase demand is out of scope

E. City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.

Incorrect. This fact does not impact the conclusion about needness to curtail energy usage.[/quote]

Hi,

Could you please provide your more detail analysis for option D?

here if residential customer are responsible for electricity consumption then how does it make sense to give ordinance for all city departments.


Please clarify.

Thanks
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 205
Premium Member
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2015, 06:43
Harley1980 wrote:
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.


Conclusion: We must therefore begin to curtail usage [because] there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

It is quite logical that existing power plants did not have capacity to meet demand increases but argument says nothing about it so we need to state this fact.

A. Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Correct. Negation test destroy the conclusion of argument: "Existing power plants do have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity." If they have capacity then we do need to curtail usage.

B. No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
Incorrect. Whether or not some departments already implement these measures does not cancel needness to curtail the usage.

C. Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so economic consequences are out of scope.

D. Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so who exactly create this increase demand is out of scope

E. City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.

Incorrect. This fact does not impact the conclusion about needness to curtail energy usage.[/quote]

Hi,

Could you please provide your more detail analysis for option D?

here if residential customer are responsible for electricity consumption then how does it make sense to give ordinance for all city departments.


Please clarify.

Thanks
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1244
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2015, 13:35
1
PathFinder007 wrote:
Harley1980 wrote:
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.


Conclusion: We must therefore begin to curtail usage [because] there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

It is quite logical that existing power plants did not have capacity to meet demand increases but argument says nothing about it so we need to state this fact.

A. Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Correct. Negation test destroy the conclusion of argument: "Existing power plants do have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity." If they have capacity then we do need to curtail usage.

B. No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
Incorrect. Whether or not some departments already implement these measures does not cancel needness to curtail the usage.

C. Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so economic consequences are out of scope.

D. Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so who exactly create this increase demand is out of scope

E. City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.

Incorrect. This fact does not impact the conclusion about needness to curtail energy usage.

Hi,

Could you please provide your more detail analysis for option D?

here if residential customer are responsible for electricity consumption then how does it make sense to give ordinance for all city departments.


Please clarify.

Thanks


Hello PathFinder007
The main point of this question is what we need to curtail current consumption because we don't have space for new power plants.

But what if current power plants can easily provide electricity for next 200 years of such regular increases of consumption?
We don't have space for building new power plants but we don't need to build them.

In such case, this conclusion about curtailing is wrong.

Information about who makes this increase in consumption does not have relation to the conclusion.
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 17 May 2015
Posts: 33
Premium Member
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Nov 2015, 02:45
1
Harley1980 wrote:
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.


Conclusion: We must therefore begin to curtail usage [because] there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

It is quite logical that existing power plants did not have capacity to meet demand increases but argument says nothing about it so we need to state this fact.

A. Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Correct. Negation test destroy the conclusion of argument: "Existing power plants do have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity." If they have capacity then we do need to curtail usage.

B. No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
Incorrect. Whether or not some departments already implement these measures does not cancel needness to curtail the usage.

C. Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so economic consequences are out of scope.

D. Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so who exactly create this increase demand is out of scope

E. City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.

Incorrect. This fact does not impact the conclusion about needness to curtail energy usage.[/quote]


I always get confused on what the conclusion is. In this question isnt the plan the conclusion ? If not what is it ? Premise?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 50
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2015, 16:04
2
I always get confused on what the conclusion is. In this question isnt the plan the conclusion ? If not what is it ? Premise?[/quote]

Hi ,

Conclusion is always the final message /Verdict that the author/passage wants to deliver and a premise would be set of facts,details or reasons that
help the passage/author reach that conclusion.
If you get confused while identifying a conclusion use the "why" technique?

In this example,

We must therefore begin to curtail usage, which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.
"Why" do you need to curtail usage - Bcos there is no space for new power plants.
why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments - Bcos,we need to curtail usage.


Because they are able to answer your "why",they would be the conclusion and not the premise

Now,lets look at the first statement,
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.

Now lets apply the "why" question?

Why the Demand for electricity had been increasing?- No idea - no info given in the passage
Why there is there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases-No idea - no info given in the passage
Since they are just facts / reasons themselves,they fail the "why" test and hence they are premise.


I have generalised this for you to keep it simple.A passage can have multiple premises and even multiple conclusions but that is something you will
learn once youstart getting the premises and conclusions right.

In short,the premises are the stepping stones that lay the foundation for the conclusion.

Hope this helps
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 583
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 26 Apr 2017, 08:37
4
3
The correct answer is A
This argument commits the
Fallacy of False Dichotomy, also known as False Dilemma:
-
which assumes that there are only and only 2 options for the problem in question and any other options to solve the problem simply do not exist.
This is most common fallacy of presumption and can be rectified by showing that more than 2 solutions exists for the problem.

IN THIS QUESTION:- City council Member believes that that there are only 2 options to be exercised when facing an increase in the demand for electricity. The argument assumes that to cope with the increasing demand:-
1) Build new electricity Plants (FIRST SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM)
2) Reduce the consumption (SECOND SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM)

WHAT IF THERE IS A THIRD SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM.

For Example- The current electricity plant is working at only 50 % capacity. Then we can easily increase its capacity to 60 %. This increased output of electricity can easily meet the increase in demand. Bamm !! the argument is destroyed.

OPTION A STATES THIS FACT PERFECTLY.
The members wrongly assumes:-Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.



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.

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.


Originally posted by LogicGuru1 on 13 Jul 2016, 02:43.
Last edited by LogicGuru1 on 26 Apr 2017, 08:37, edited 3 times in total.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2015
Posts: 94
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Aug 2016, 06:30
1
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.[/quote]

Conclusion: We must therefore begin to curtail usage [because] there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

It is quite logical that existing power plants did not have capacity to meet demand increases but argument says nothing about it so we need to state this fact.

A. Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Correct. Negation test destroy the conclusion of argument: "Existing power plants do have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity." If they have capacity then we do need to curtail usage.

B. No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
Incorrect. Whether or not some departments already implement these measures does not cancel needness to curtail the usage.

C. Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so economic consequences are out of scope.

D. Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
Incorrect. We should think only about conclusion and need to curtail usage so who exactly create this increase demand is out of scope

E. City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.[/quote]
Incorrect. This fact does not impact the conclusion about needness to curtail energy usage.

Hi,

Could you please provide your more detail analysis for option D?

here if residential customer are responsible for electricity consumption then how does it make sense to give ordinance for all city departments.


Please clarify.

Thanks[/quote]

Hello PathFinder007
The main point of this question is what we need to curtail current consumption because we don't have space for new power plants.

But what if current power plants can easily provide electricity for next 200 years of such regular increases of consumption?
We don't have space for building new power plants but we don't need to build them.

In such case, this conclusion about curtailing is wrong.

Information about who makes this increase in consumption does not have relation to the conclusion.[/quote]


I too got it wrong. It was initially tough to chose between A) and D).
I guess negation of both does not make it any clear

Negation of A) Existing plants have the capacity to meet the rising power requirements (Hence no need for additional power plants, no need to curtail power by reducing the govt building power usage)

Negation of D) Residents are responsible for the rise in power consumption (Hence curtailing the power usage of govt buildings will not help).

Now Lets take a calculative approach :

Total power consumption = 100 GWatts
Residents = 75 GW -----> projected to increase by 1.5 % yearly
Govt = 20 GW
others = 5 GW
TOtal capacity of the power plants = 100 GW

SO next year it will increase by approx 1 GW
Reduce Govt power usage by 10 GW -----> this will help avoid the need to build a new power plant for atleast 9 yrs (approx)
does not necessarily breakdown the conclusion (or the govt plans) even if the residents are the major consumers.

BUT what if :
Total power consumption = 100 GWatts
Residents = 75 GW -----> projected to increase by 1.5 % yearly
Govt = 20 GW
others = 5 GW
TOtal capacity of the power plants = 200 GW

The plant is good for a long time to come. Since its only at half its capacity (no need for govt plan) ----> completely works (Our answer must be A)
_________________

You have to dig deep and find out what it takes to reshuffle the cards life dealt you

Current Student
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jul 2016
Posts: 38
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.6
Reviews Badge
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Aug 2016, 07:52
2
In this question, I mistook the conclusion to be "I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments." because "We must therefore begin to curtail usage". I didn't take "We must therefore begin to curtail usage" as the conclusion, hence I was confused between B and D. How does one fin conclusion in such passages?
Regards,
Abhijit
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
User avatar
B
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 319
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Aug 2016, 15:12
abhibad wrote:
In this question, I mistook the conclusion to be "I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments." because "We must therefore begin to curtail usage". I didn't take "We must therefore begin to curtail usage" as the conclusion, hence I was confused between B and D. How does one fin conclusion in such passages?
Regards,
Abhijit

Hi Abhijit,

I'd be happy to help. Think about it like this:

What action does this person ultimately want?

The conclusion is the thing or action that the author/arguer ultimately wants. When you look at it that way, you can elevate beyond just scanning for keywords, etc. to quickly and accurately detect the conclusion of an argument.
_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."
Image

Image

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount


GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 196
Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 470 Q30 V20
GMAT 2: 620 Q42 V33
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2016, 15:04
abhibad wrote:
In this question, I mistook the conclusion to be "I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments." because "We must therefore begin to curtail usage". I didn't take "We must therefore begin to curtail usage" as the conclusion, hence I was confused between B and D. How does one fin conclusion in such passages?
Regards,
Abhijit


Maybe you did not understand that it required an "assumption", or an "unstated premise"... something in between the lines.

Ask yourself "if the city mayor wants to cut the usage of public buildings" AT LEAST he believes that the problem is real and nothing can be done to get rid of it.

Now why he believes in that considering that the offer won't cover the demand (premise 1 and premise 2)?

Because there is no room for further production.
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1789
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2017, 21:38
through excessive practices, test takers can choose A right after completely reading the option.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Posts: 175
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V38
GPA: 3.6
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2017, 03:38
Clearly A is the Answer.
If existing power plant can handle the demand then it is enough to supply 1.5% demand increase
_________________

Regards,
Naveen
email: nkmungila@gmail.com
Please press kudos if you like this post

Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 235
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.65
WE: Marketing (Education)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2017, 07:56
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.


Because this is an assumption question, we tried to negate the answer choices :

A. Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
If they HAVE CAPACITY, so why we need to curtail usage? Break the conclusion : the answer.

B. No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
If only one or two departments have implemented voluntary, it is still valid to pass ordinances. Wrong.

C. Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
Even if ordinances HAVE NEGATIVE economic consequences, we are not talking about "ECONOMIC" thing here. Wrong.

D. Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
If residential consumers ARE RESPONSIBLE, we even can still pass ordinances. Wrong.

E. City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.
Simply irrelevant.
_________________

There's an app for that - Steve Jobs.

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 104
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 620 Q41 V34
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
CAT Tests
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Sep 2018, 05:49
1
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.

Premises:
Conclusion: We must therefore begin to curtail usage. I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments
Support to conclusion/Premises:
1. Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 percent a year,
2. There simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

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

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

Exactly that is why he proposed to curtail usage and to pass ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.
Negate: Existing power plants DO have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
They why would he propose to curtail usage.
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.
Quote:
D. Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.

This is the other most tempting answer option.
Let's see: If "Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity"
Then city council member is right in his proposal.
Negate: Residential consumers ARE responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
The proposal still stands. That all departments need to apply energy conservation.

E. City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
D
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Posts: 2900
Location: Canada
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2018, 10:05
Top Contributor
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.


PREMISE: Electricity demands increase 1.5% per year
PREMISE: No space to build more power plants
CONCLUSION: We must use LESS electricity through ordinances

Strategy #1: Try to think of an assumption that's required for the conclusion to logically follow from the premises.
Notice that nothing is mentioned about how the power plants are handing the present demands.
After all, it could be the case that, to meet the present demands, the power plants need only operate at 5% capacity, in which case, it may not be necessary to implement energy-conservation measures.
As assumption is that the existing power plants are not able to handle increases in demand

Now look for YOUR answer among the answer choices . . . answer choice A seems similar to our assumption.

Answer: A

ASIDE: In many cases, you will be unable to identify a needed assumption. No problem.
This brings us to . . .

Strategy #2: NEGATE each answer choice. If the NEGATED assumption DESTROYS the conclusion, then that answer choice must be correct.
Why? If the negated assumption destroys the conclusion, we must need that assumption to be true.

A) Existing power plants DO have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Does this negated statement DESTROY the conclusion that the city must use LESS electricity through ordinances?
YES!! It kills the conclusion.
If we have enough capacity to handle future demand, there's no NEED to use less power.

Answer: A

Cheers,
Brent
_________________

Brent Hanneson – GMATPrepNow.com
Image
Sign up for our free Question of the Day emails

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 141
GPA: 3.72
Reviews Badge
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2018, 10:55
1
I have missed this question, and opted choice B, thinking that the core argument is covered not completly by option A but by option B. And as a rule if any option doesn't account for the core argument, then we can discard that option - this reasoning in my head tricked me psychologically, and even knowking that option A is certainly correct, I opted B.
Take Away - Do not rely on any rule of thumb, or "known theory," while solving the CR questions.
_________________

A lot needs to be learned from all of you.

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 08 Feb 2018
Posts: 28
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Sep 2018, 02:38
AD2GMAT wrote:
I have missed this question, and opted choice B, thinking that the core argument is covered not completly by option A but by option B. And as a rule if any option doesn't account for the core argument, then we can discard that option - this reasoning in my head tricked me psychologically, and even knowking that option A is certainly correct, I opted B.
Take Away - Do not rely on any rule of thumb, or "known theory," while solving the CR questions.


Same here AD2GMAT. Actually not sticking to rule of thumb (Identifying the actual conclusion) got this question wrong for me. I followed the question which says, assumption for proposal and considered the latter part of the conclusion.

Query:
1. Does this often happen in the main exam, can we expect such questions?
2. Is answering the question stem the ultimate goal? ( whatever the rule of thumb is)
GMAT Club Bot
Re: City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 &nbs [#permalink] 21 Sep 2018, 02:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.