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

Solution
passage analysis        
                                          
City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 percent a year,

A city council member presents a fact here. The demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 % every year.

and there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

It is also given that there is no more space to build additional power plants to meet the growing demands for electricity.

We must therefore begin to curtail usage,

So, the only recourse is to start reducing the usage of electricity.

which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.

For this, the council member proposes passing laws that need all city departments to start using energy-conservation measures.

Conclusion: There is a need to pass ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments because there is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases


pre-thinking                                                                 
Falsification question

In what scenario would there be no need to pass ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments?
Given that
The demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 % every year.
 There is no more space to build additional power plants
                

Thought Process

Very simply put the council member believes that since we have not more space to build more power plants, we need to reduce electricity usage. So, he clearly believes one thing, that there is no other way to meet the growing electricity demand except to curtail usage.

Falsification condition

What if there was a way – Could we increase the capacity of electricity generation of the existing power plants so as to meet the increasing demand for electricity?

In that case, we would not need to build more power plants for which we do not have any more space. And then our need for passing ordinances requiring energy conservation measures will be nullified.

Assumption

The capacity of electricity generation of the existing power plants cannot be increased in order to meet the increasing demand for electricity.

Answer Choice Analysis

A
This is in line with our pre-thinking assumption. The existing power plants cannot handle all of the growing demand for electricity or in other words, the existing power plants cannot be utilized to generate more electricity and we cannot build more power plants. Therefore, we have to pass rules for energy conservation measures.

Hence, this is the correct answer.

B
This means that there are no city departments that practice energy-conservation measures of their own accord.

Let us say that there are some city departments that are using energy-conservation measures of their own accord. But still there could exist a further need to curb electricity usage in order to meet the growing demand. So, we see that the negation does not break down our conclusion. It is not a must be true idea.

Hence, it is not the correct answer.

C
This option says that the ordinances that are designed to conserve energy will not have a negative economic outcome for the city.

The motive of the ordinances is to curtail electricity usage in order to meet the growing electricity demand. If that has a negative economic impact on the city, will the council not implement the ordinances? The council believes there is no other way to increase the amount of available electricity. Maybe the council has weighed the pros and cons and decided the pros are more than the cons. This option need not be true for the conclusion to hold true.

Hence, it is not the answer.

D
Let us say the residential consumers are responsible for the increase in the demand for electricity. But it is possible that the council thinks that their consumption cannot be reduced. They might be of the opinion that the city departments are overusing electricity and hence need ordinances. Does the negation break down my conclusion? No.

Hence, it is not the correct answer.

E
This option means that once the city departments start conserving energy, they will set a good example to be followed by residential and industrial consumers of electricity.

This option might be a future motive of the ordinances, but it cannot be the must-be-true thought behind the ordinances.

Let us say the residential and industrial consumers of electricity do not follow the example set by the city council, does it mean we should not pass the ordinances for the conservation of energy? No.

Hence, this is not the correct option.

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.
So, an 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 necessary 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, then 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

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?

Always stick to the conclusion and the premises that lead to it.
What we have to find is the assumption of the argument. An assumption is nothing but an unstated premise that lends support to the conclusion.
​
The premises here are-
- demand has been increasing
- there is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

Conclusion/proposal-

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

(A) Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Option A is an unstated premise that supports the conclusion
- demand has been increasing
- there is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.
- Existing power plants do not have the capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Therefore- We must therefore begin to curtail usage, which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.

Let’s negate option A-
If the existing power plants had the capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity, we wouldn’t have to curtail usage or pass ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments. Negation of option A breaks the argument.
Option A is correct.

(B) No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
Even if some city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily, our conclusion is still valid. Negation of option D doesn’t lead to the negation of the conclusion. Eliminate.

(C) Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
Economic consequences- Out of scope. Eliminate

(D) Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
​D says residential consumers are not responsible. It doesn’t matter who is responsible. We know that the demand is increasing and that we don’t have space to build more power plants
No matter who is using electricity - We must curtail usage
Eliminate.

(E) City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.
Does not impact the argument. Out of scope- Eliminate

VP
GMAT Verbal SME

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

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

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.

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

The correct answer is A
This argument commits :-
Fallacy of False Dichotomy, also known as False Dilemma:-
which assumes that there are 2 and only 2 solution 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. Showing a 3rd option acts a weakener that destroys the argument.

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- What if the current electricity plant is working at only 50 % capacity. Then we can easily increase its capacity to 60% or 70%. This increased output of electricity can easily meet the increase in demand. ----> Bamm !! the argument is destroyed. AND YOU GOT YOUR CORRECT ANSWER !!

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.

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.

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.

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?


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.

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.

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.

Council Member's proposal : pass ordinance requiring energy conservation in (where) city departments

Demand: increase in demand for electricity
Supply : to meet the demand ; no space to add additional ones -> tells the existing ones do not have the capacity , that is why we need to add additional ones to meet the demand (hence A the answer)

Since we can't have the supply to meet the demand, the council member proposes energy conservation measures in city departments to control usage of electricity. This sentence is what confused me.

I was choosing between A and D.

Why I also felt D was the right answer was because energy conservation measures was proposed only in city departments. So if we manage to control electricity usage only in city departments and not in other places, how are we so sure that we would be able to control electricity usage in general ? - Could someone help to address this doubt? thanks.

Excerpt from the argument -

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

Conclusion: Reduce consumption.
Target energy-conservation measures in all city departments.

Why the author is targeting energy-conservation measures ONLY in all city departments?
Pre-Think:

It's likely that all city departments ARE responsible for the increase in demand, and they would continue to do so in the future as well.
Inference: Other departments/buildings are NOT responsible for the increase in demand, and they would NOT begin to do so in the future as well.

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

OptionD toys with the same idea. However, it barely scratches the surface.
Reading optionD, one can infer that D, clearly, is a strengthener.

However, the stark difference between a strengthener and an assumption is that unlike that of a strengthener, the negation of an assumption MUST shatter the conclusion.
RCs are NOT responsible!

Great. The initiative possibly would work: A strengthener.

!D = Residential consumers (RCs) are responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.

Even if we assume that RCs -----> the recent increases in demand for electricity, how do we explain the need to reduce the consumption of electricity?
Irrespective of from where the demand comes be it residential buildings, departments, post-offices or vanilla flavored ice-cream lorries, We STILL need to curtail the usage because of the RISING demand for electricity:

Whether consumers are to blame for the increases is NOT relevant to reduce energy consumption.
The proposal still stands that all departments need to apply energy conservation.

Dear GMATNinja, gmat1393, GMATNinjaTwo, nightblade354 egmat

City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 percent a year, and there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases. We must therefore begin to curtail usage, which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.

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

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

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

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

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

Now, which one is correct? Scenario 1. It makes far more sense. Which makes the "I propose" the main conclusion.