It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 02:58

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# OG 2016 - Demand for electricity

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 30 Oct 2013
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: 285 [3], given: 15

OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2015, 19:48
3
KUDOS
18
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

71% (01:07) correct 29% (01:16) wrong based on 1552 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 285 [3], given: 15

Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1271

Kudos [?]: 2386 [5], given: 178

Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2015, 09:15
5
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 2386 [5], given: 178

Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 238

Kudos [?]: 106 [1], given: 13

Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2015, 06:42
1
KUDOS
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,

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

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 106 [1], given: 13

Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 238

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 13

Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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,

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

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 13

Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1271

Kudos [?]: 2386 [0], given: 178

Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2015, 13:35
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,

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

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.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 2386 [0], given: 178

Intern
Joined: 17 May 2015
Posts: 36

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 166

Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2015, 02:45
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?

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 166

Manager
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 51

Kudos [?]: 35 [2], given: 23

OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2015, 16:04
2
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 35 [2], given: 23

EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 176

Kudos [?]: 596 [2], given: 51

Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2015, 23:34
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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."

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

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Kudos [?]: 596 [2], given: 51

Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 647

Kudos [?]: 379 [4], given: 36

GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2016, 02:43
4
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Last edited by LogicGuru1 on 26 Apr 2017, 08:37, edited 3 times in total.

Kudos [?]: 379 [4], given: 36

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2015
Posts: 95

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 155

Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2016, 06:30
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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,

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

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

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 155

Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2016
Posts: 38

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 9

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.6
Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2016, 07:52
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

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 9

EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 176

Kudos [?]: 596 [0], given: 51

Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2016, 15:12
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."

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

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Kudos [?]: 596 [0], given: 51

Manager
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 201

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 138

Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 470 Q30 V20
GMAT 2: 620 Q42 V33
Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2016, 15:04
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.

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 138

Intern
Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

10 Jul 2017, 19:11
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.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 3

VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1117

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 1063

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jul 2017, 21:38
through excessive practices, test takers can choose A right after completely reading the option.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 1063

Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Posts: 176

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 59

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V38
GPA: 3.6
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2017, 03:38
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

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 59

Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 177

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 205

Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Nonprofit
GPA: 3.65
WE: Sales (Consumer Products)
Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 205

Re: OG 2016 - Demand for electricity   [#permalink] 18 Oct 2017, 07:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by