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

Passage Analysis

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

o The city council member, who is the author, explains that the electricity demand in the city has been increasing by 1.5 percent each year.

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

o To meet the upcoming increase of demand, additional powerplants will be required but this is not a solution since there is no extra space to make this way possible.

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

o The author advocates controlling the usage of electric power.
o This is the reason she puts forward a proposal to pass ordinances that makes steps for energy-conservation a requirement in all city departments.

Conclusion: Ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments should be passed if the supply of electricity in the city should continue to meet the demand.

Question Stem Analysis
The city council member’s proposal is based on certain assumptions, which we have to identify.

Pre-thinking

Falsification Question
In what scenario is it possible that the supply of electricity in the city will continue to meet the demand without passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments?
Given that

• Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 percent a year.
• There is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.

Thought Process
The author puts forward the proposal because steps need to be taken to rein in the rate of energy usage in the city to avoid energy deficit. The lack of space to build new powerplants is clear from the passage but nothing is said of upgradation of the existing plants. Also, other electric power production methods that do not consume as much space as whole new powerplants are not mentioned. Only if such options are ruled out will curtailing usage to avoid deficit become a necessary step.

Falsification condition#1
What if the current running power plants could be upgraded to increase their capacity?
In that case the facts hold but the conclusion breaks down.
Assumption#1
The existing power plants’ capacity cannot be sufficiently upgraded to meet the future needs.

Falsification condition#2
If there are other methods which don’t consume significantly large amount of space to produce electricity, will there be any need to curtail usage to check the future energy deficit? In that case also the conclusion breaks down.
Assumption#2
Alternative methods of power production which don’t require a significant amount of space are not possible in this case.

Answer Choice Analysis

(A) Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all the projected increase in demand for electricity.
CORRECT
This assumption is necessary for the conclusion to be valid and follows our line of pre-thinking. Hence this is the correct answer.

(B) No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
INCORRECT
This is not a relevant assumption for the conclusion to hold true. The proposal will still be relevant even if some of departments did implement energy conservation measures voluntarily.

(C) Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
INCORRECT
Economic consequences are not a factor regarding this proposal. Even if this is the case, as long as the premise of the argument stays true, the proposal will still be relevant. Hence this is a wrong answer choice.

(D) Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
INCORRECT
This assumption is not needed for passing the ordinance to curtail electricity usage of city departments. There may exist more than one responsible player. Hence, this answer is not correct.

(E) City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.
INCORRECT
This assumption is not necessary for the conclusion to hold. Irrespective of the setting of successful examples, curtailing usage is the primary aim of the proposed ordinances. Hence this cannot be the correct answer.