Gasoline driven power plants in Belvia utilize one consumable unit of

Question

Gasoline driven power plants in Belvia utilize one consumable unit of gasoline to generate three consumable units of electricity. As Belvia’s GDP grows, more and more people opt for air conditioners in their houses. Clearly Belvia will need to either build new power plants or start importing electricity from neighbouring countries in the next few years because adding air conditioners can easily double the power consumption of a household. Moreover, Belvia’s power plants are already running at peak capacity.

In which of the following statements must be author believe while making his claim in the above argument?

A. The usage of evaporative room coolers, which use less electricity than air conditioners, is not expected to decline as more people purchase air conditioners for their houses.
B. Increase in price of electricity is not likely to reduce the amount of money people spend on purchasing new air conditioners.
C. The amount of gasoline required to produce one unit of electricity will not come down in the near future.
D. The new air conditioners being installed in homes today are not more efficient than the air conditioners installed previously.
E. The investments that Belvia had been doing in alternate sources of energy such as solar and hydrogen driven power plants will not start providing significant amount of electricity in the near future.

himanshu.k_ · Accepted Answer

so inorganic question , not even holding the rules of assumptions , you cant take alien ideas in an assumption

Yankeesaregreat · Answer

Why is Choice E better than Choice C?

Aasthabalar · Answer

why answer E is more better than C ?

Praditha · Answer

Even if gasoline price decreases, will that increase the electricity production ?
Note that it is stated that the plants are running at their max capacity. Reduction in gasoline price might be good, but it will not create an increase in no of units of electricity produced.

RenB · Answer

Even if the amount of gasoline required per unit does come down, we do not know if the available energy will suffice. I.e if the extra energy generated by such efficiency will be enough to meet the demand.
Wheras option E states that the alnernate sources will provide-  'Significant'  energy. Significant, as I understand, means enough to create a major impact in the context. Thus E can affect the argument more strongly than C.

infowarf · Answer

Actually very easy question. I think it's overestimated to be 800+.

Premises:

Belvia spends 1 u of gas to produce 3 u of electricity.

As GDP increases, people use more ACs => the consumption of the electricity may be doubled.

Conclusion: Belvia is going to import electricity or build new power plants.

Assumption should deny the future plans of Belvia.

Only C and E touch the conclusion in some way.

C says that the gas is going to become more efficient. How much more is indefinite. Maybe by 10% or by 110% we don't know. Also, the discount is not going to eliminate the possibility of the import.

E says that Belvia's alternative power sources will provide significant amount of electricity. The answer is not ideal, as it is possible to criticize it. However, between these two the E says that the provision is going to be significant. Hence, we have better ground to not import electricity or build a powerplant.

finisher009 · Answer

I understood that amount here means quantity notprice. If 3 units of gasoline produces 1 unit of electricity and if the amount used here goes down, say 1 units, then 3 units gasoline can produces 3 units of electricity thus increasing production of electricity, what am i missing?

iamjatinagrawal · Answer

Because even if it comes down, what exactly would be the new amount, can't tell by what's given in the argument. But if we look at E, it tells that the investments in new sources of energy won't give significant amount of electricity which would require us to build more power plants or import from other countries.

Hope, this helps.

Yankeesaregreat

Why is Choice E better than Choice C?

Hope, this helps.

mashedk · Answer

Isn't the investment into alternate sources of energy building more power plants, which the argument specifically defines as what is required?

Divyanshu14 · Answer

KarishmaB ,

Had a quick query. While I understand that E is more lucrative, but wouldn't it be a completely new information? I have seen people advise to be cautious of a new information in case of assumption question.

Can you please add some color here. Also, can you please help negate C?

Thanks

krutarth21 · Answer

Are C and E both correct answer?

providentdolor · Answer

Doesn't option E go against what is stated in the passage that all Belivia's power plants are already at max capacity, not just the gasoline driven plants. How can it be assumed that power plants driven by other sources will increase when the passage is clearly stated against this possibility.

Additionally, why is option D being ruled out? If the new ACs will not require as much power as the author expected, then the need for increased electricity could be fulfilled with the existing power being produced. Which would break the authors conclusion

egmat · Answer

providentdolor  Let me clarify both concerns.

Regarding Option E and the "max capacity" statement:

You're right that the passage says "Belvia's power plants are already running at peak capacity." But notice what Option E says: "investments that Belvia  had been doing  in alternate sources...will  not start  providing significant electricity in the near future."

The key distinction: 
 
 The passage refers to  EXISTING, CURRENTLY OPERATIONAL  power plants being at max capacity 
 Option E refers to  INVESTMENTS  in new alternative energy sources that  HAVEN'T YET  started providing significant electricity

These are different things! The passage doesn't say Belvia has  no  investments in alternative energy—it just tells us about current gasoline plants and current capacity. Option E introduces the possibility that there might be alternative energy projects under development that could come online soon.

Why must the author assume E?

Use the Negation Test: If these alternative energy investments WILL start providing significant electricity soon, then Belvia might NOT need to build new plants or import electricity—the alternative sources could meet the increased demand. This destroys the author's conclusion. Therefore, the author must assume E is true.

Regarding Option D:

You're raising a valid consideration, but let's examine it more carefully.

Option D states: "The new air conditioners being installed today are not more efficient than air conditioners installed previously."

Why D is not necessary:

Context of "adding" ACs:  The argument is about people who are NEWLY purchasing ACs (as GDP grows, "more and more people opt for air conditioners"). These are households going from  NO AC  to  HAVING an AC , not replacing old ACs with new ones.
 
  The comparison is mismatched:  "More efficient than previously installed" compares new AC models to older AC models in  other  houses. But if a household is adding an AC where there was none, there's no previous AC in  that  house to compare to.
 
  Negation Test:  Even if new ACs ARE more efficient than older models, going from zero AC to any AC still dramatically increases electricity consumption. An efficient AC might use less than an inefficient one, but it still uses vastly more than no AC at all. The argument says ACs "can easily double" household consumption—even if efficient ACs increase it by  70\%  instead of  100\% , that's still a massive increase that would strain the system at peak capacity.

The argument would still hold even if new ACs are more efficient, so D is not a necessary assumption.

Hope this addresses your questions! Feel free to ask any other doubts you may have!

Also, you can practice similar questions  here  (these are official questions- you'll find detailed explanation and the correct approach to tackle these) - select "Assumption" under "Critical Reasoning" and you can creat guided quizzes/timed quizzes as per the difficulty level.

DangPham9625 · Answer

Why must the author assume E?

Use the Negation Test: If these alternative energy investments  WILL  start providing significant electricity soon, then Belvia might  NOT  need to build new plants or import electricity—the alternative sources could meet the increased demand. This destroys the author's conclusion. Therefore, the author must assume E is true.
 
 If these alternative energy investments  WILL  start providing significant electricity soon does not guarantee that it will be enough so that Belvia  WILL NOT   need to build new plants or import electricity. Only in that case the author  MUST  assume E is true. If you just say Belvia  MIGHT NOT  need to ... then it's not strong enough. IMO opt E is not tight enough but okay it's the best out of 5

egmat · Answer

DangPham9625  When an argument concludes that something  "will"  or  "must"  happen, the author needs to assume away  any reasonable alternative possibility . The negation doesn't have to  guarantee  the conclusion is false—it only needs to show the conclusion is  no longer certain .

Why "Might Not" is Enough:

The conclusion states: Belvia  will need to  build new plants  or  import electricity
 
 This is a claim of  certainty  about future necessity
 
 By negating E, there's a  third viable option  (alternatives meet the demand) 
 This means the conclusion is no longer certain—Belvia  might not need  those two options
 
 A "will happen" claim that becomes a "might happen" claim is  broken

You're applying a stricter standard than GMAT requires. You seem to think the negation must  prove  the conclusion false. Actually, for necessary assumptions, the negation only needs to  raise reasonable doubt  about a definitive conclusion.

Think of it this way: If I claim "I  will definitely  need an umbrella tomorrow," and you show me "it  might  be sunny," you've undermined my certainty. I don't need proof it  will  be sunny—the mere reasonable possibility breaks my "will definitely need" claim.

Rito1599 · Answer

Even if E is passing the test of negation but the alternative sources of energies for example solar power is Totally a new idea right?
Just like the old ACs and room coolers

hr1212 · Answer

Yes  Rito1599 , it's a new idea but this pattern is quite common in assumption family questions, where if you know that as per the argument X caused Y, to create doubt you could easily argue that Z might have caused Y, and that could be an assumption which could easily break the given argument.

lakshaykaushal11 · Answer

Passage doesn't state anything about the investments of country in energy resources So isn't E out of scope then.
Please let me know

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hi lakshaykaushal11

If solar/hydrogen plants come online soon, they could meet new demand without new gasoline plants or imports. So the author must assume they won’t. This is necessary.

E  is correct.

Gasoline driven power plants in Belvia utilize one consumable unit of

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

Gasoline driven power plants in Belvia utilize one consumable unit of

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