Department of Energy Spokesman: Energy consumers who pay their own

Question

Department of Energy Spokesman: Energy consumers who pay their own utility bills have a direct financial incentive to use less energy. But in most of our nation's residential rental properties, the owner of the property - not the tenant who directly consumes that property's energy - pays the utility bill. In order to reduce our nation's energy consumption, we should require that tenants be responsible for paying their utility bills in residential rental properties.

C. Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate.

If the statement above is true then paying bills by tenants will not make any significant difference.

Answer: C.

Which of the following is a reason to believe that the plan outlined above will not reach its goal?

A Most rental properties are rented by younger people, and people tend to be more conscious about environmental issues like energy consumption when they are younger.

B When owners of rental properties are responsible for utility bills, they are more likely to ensure that a property's appliances and furnaces are the most energy-efficient versions.

C Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate.

D Energy bills are calculated not only by the amount of energy used, but also by the times of day during which energy is used.

E Other nations have had success reducing energy consumption by offering rental subsidies for tenants whose energy usage falls below certain thresholds.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler   
   Problem Solving Butler   
   Sentence Correction Butler   
   Reading Comprehension Butler   
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

Bismuth83 · Accepted Answer

1. The Department of Energy wants to "reduce our nation's energy consumption". To do this, the Department of Energy Spokesman says: "In order to reduce our nation's energy consumption, we should require that tenants be responsible for paying their utility bills in residential rental properties". Now we need a statement that gives reason to believe that the plan outlined above will not reach its goal.

2.  Most rental properties are rented by younger people, and people tend to be more conscious about environmental issues like energy consumption when they are younger.  Even if the tenants are more conscious about energy consumption, it doesn't necessarily mean that if they pay then the plan won't work.   So, the statement doesn't give a reason to believe that the plan won't work.

3.  When owners of rental properties are responsible for utility bills, they are more likely to ensure that a property's appliances and furnaces are the most energy-efficient versions.  Here, if the tenants pay their bills, then the owners could be using appliances and furnaces that aren't the most energy-efficient. Then, energy consumption possibly won't decrease.   So, the statement does give a reason to believe that the plan won't work.

4.  Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate.  The goal is to reduce energy consumption. Even if residential real estate contributes little, a decrease there would still mean an overall reduction in the country's energy consumption.   So, the statement doesn't give a reason to believe that the plan won't work.

5.  Energy bills are calculated not only by the amount of energy used, but also by the times of day during which energy is used.  This is irrelevant since it isn't known how this information would provide a reason.   So, the statement doesn't give a reason to believe that the plan won't work.

6.  Other nations have had success reducing energy consumption by offering rental subsidies for tenants whose energy usage falls below certain thresholds.  Just because other nations offered rental subsidies, doesn't mean that not doing that will not help successfully reduce energy consumption.   So, the statement doesn't give a reason to believe that the plan won't work.

Abdelaali91 · Answer

A Most rental properties are rented by younger people, and people tend to be more conscious about environmental issues like energy consumption when they are younger. 
 We are not given any details about the age group of tenants in the argument, so this statement has no effect on the argument.

B When owners of rental properties are responsible for utility bills, they are more likely to ensure that a property's appliances and furnaces are the most energy-efficient versions. 
 Even so, the issue is not whether appliances are energy efficient, the argument is rather concerned with the use of energy. If used more often, these energy efficient appliances would consume more energy that "regular" appliances used less often.

C Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate. 
 Yes, this gives a clear reason to question whether the plan will work, because if most of energy consumption comes from commercial real estate then making tenants pay utility bills, ergo reducing energy consumption won't make a difference.
 
 D Energy bills are calculated not only by the amount of energy used, but also by the times of day during which energy is used. 
 How energy bills are calculated is not relevant
 
 E Other nations have had success reducing energy consumption by offering rental subsidies for tenants whose energy usage falls below certain thresholds. 
 The grass is always greener. The fact that there are other alternatives does not mean that the plan in question won't work.

Answer C.

prantorboni · Answer

Department of Energy Spokesman: Energy consumers who pay their own utility bills have a direct financial incentive to use less energy. But in most of our nation's residential rental properties, the owner of the property - not the tenant who directly consumes that property's energy - pays the utility bill. In order to reduce our nation's energy consumption, we should require that tenants be responsible for paying their utility bills in residential rental properties.

C. Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate.

If the statement above is true then paying bills by tenants will not make any significant difference.

Answer: C.

C. Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate.

If the statement above is true then paying bills by tenants will not make any significant difference.

Answer: C.

poojaarora1818 · Answer

Can someone please confirm how the correct for this B? I have opted for option C. How option B is correct?

Bismuth83 · Answer

Yes, I agree that option C seems like a good answer.

The goal of the Department of energy is to "reduce our nation's energy consumption". Option C infers that residential real estate will contribute very little. However, it will still decrease. On the other hand, for Option B it's unknown whether the energy consumption will decrease at all. This means it can give a reason to believe that the plan won't reach the goal.

Hope that helped answer your question!

poojaarora1818 · Answer

Thank you so much for addressing my doubts. Yes, it does help.

wasario · Answer

The problem with C is that it's a trick question trying to take away from what the passage is saying. The passage claims that they want to reduce nationwide energy consumption, but they never said by HOW MUCH.

Now in answer choice C, it says that commercial estate is more energy consuming than rental. And assuming that this is true, if the plan does go through, sure the energy consumption might go down very marginally. But it still WENT DOWN, which achieves what the passage is trying to say. A decrease is a decrease, even if it's only by .000001%. Never assume anything from these passages!

Meanwhile with answer B, it provides a clear counter to the argument. The passage thinks that because owners are the ones who pay instead of tenants, it should be tenants paying the bills; however, answer choice B counters by saying that when the owners are the ones paying, they actually use the most energy efficient appliances, meaning that if tenants are the ones paying, owners wouldn't be doing this. Hence B is the right choice.

poojaarora1818 · Answer

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. Now, it's very much made clear sense to me. Awesome!

Grav_zer0 · Answer

But the same can be said for the tenants buying appliances or not as it is not clear that saving the electricity when tenants actually paying for it can reduce the total electricity bill (Using less efficient appliances) or not. And hypothetically it still can succeed

chetan2u · Answer

Hi,

I wouldn't say the reasoning of accepting B is too convincing but C is surely out.

The conclusion doesn't speak of how much saving. Even 1 KwH or 1 unit is sufficient to accept the conclusion. So, even if the actual energy consumption in residential area just 1% of total consumption, there would still be some saving in this 1%.

But B also has a problem. We are not sure whether this saving through energy efficient appliances will offset the excess consumption by the tenant. May be 2 units are saved through energy efficient appliances but the tenant spends 3 units extra as he would otherwise if he were to pay.

Only saviour for B is 'there is no better option'.

poojaarora1818 · Answer

chetan2u, Thank you so much for the response. I would say the most organized way of approaching a problem.

Thanks!

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

In this Plan/Strategy question, the goal is to reduce a nation's energy consumption, and the plan is to require tenants to be the payers of utility bills (as opposed to the owners of those properties). Remember: with Plan/Strategy questions, two concepts are crucial:

1) Pay close attention to the specific goal, which plays the same role as the conclusion in a classic Strengthen/Weaken question. Trap answers are often related to the general topic but do not affect the specific goal.

2) A better plan does not weaken the provided plan! Your job is only to assess whether this plan will achieve this objective, not whether it's the best plan, the most efficient plan, etc.

Note that each of C and E suggests a "better plan" - C suggests that this plan wouldn't be as effective as one that tackled energy usage in commercial real estate and E suggests that rental subsidies could be a better program. But neither directly weakens this plan: as long as less energy is used under this plan, the plan has achieved its goal of reducing energy usage. So C and E may be tempting, but they are incorrect.

Choice B is correct: if giving the tenants an incentive to use less energy also remove the incentive for the landowners to pursue energy-saving policies, that suggests that this plan may not work at all: it may not result in any energy reduction.

Choices A and D are too far from the scope of the current plan and its goal, and are also incorrect. B is the correct choice.

Aarti0701 · Answer

Energy efficient won’t ensure time of usage, so even if energy efficient equipment are installed, for how much time that equipment is used will affect the total energy consumption, hence B can’t be the answer. Further when we talk about option A, it does feel irrelevant for a bit but if you accept the scenario, then it may be the case , tenants are already aware and consumption is already minimum by tenants.So plan will not impact the energy consumption.

pk14y · Answer

I'm confused as to how it can't be A. If there are tenants that are more concious about energy saving, then that will destroy the entire plan. I also understand B because if the equipment are lesser quality that could result to less energy saving situations. However, what if the tenants are already energy consuming in other aspects in living situation, or that they don't use the equipment listed? I'm not sure if I agree with this OA, and saying that A is out of scope is just lazy.

Jollyroger · Answer

The idea is to find an option that state a reason which implies the plan to reduce energy comsumption mentioned in the para won't work. And the main concern is the tenant, in case of residential energy consumption, who actually uses energy instead of owner himself. Now in option A the tenants are already energy conscious. Therefore they will consume less energy or tries to be more energy efficient which will eventually reduce the energy consumption and hence plan to reduce energy consumption(even by 1%) will prevail. Meanwhile in option B replacing the equipment with more efficient one will not guarantee reduction in energy consumption. If the frequency of using equipment is high then it doesn't matter if the equipment are efficient or not, energy consumption will still be high. So this option fail to guarantee plan success. Hence B is the answer. Hope it helps

Department of Energy Spokesman: Energy consumers who pay their own

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Department of Energy Spokesman: Energy consumers who pay their own

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards