Although homeowners' energy conservation upgrades often pay for them

Question

Although homeowners' energy conservation upgrades often pay for themselves in the long run, many homeowners cannot afford the upfront costs. So, to promote home energy conservation, a provincial government plans to pay the initial costs for homeowners' energy conservation upgrades. Homeowners who receive this benefit will then pay the province back with interest over the next decade through surcharges on their property taxes.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for doubting that the government's plan, if implemented, will be effective?

A. Many homeowners in the province have not made energy conservation upgrades mainly because they are unaware of the potential savings.

B. For most home upgrades under the plan, the annual property tax surcharges will be lower than the annual savings from reduced energy usage.

C. Other provincial governments have successfully implemented several other less expensive methods of promoting home energy conservation.

D. Even if a few homeowners make energy conservation upgrades, the province's overall energy usage will still be excessive.

E. Most banks in the province readily offer loans for home renovations on much more favorable terms than those the government plans to offer.

siddhantvarma · Answer

Problem : Many homeowners cannot afford the upfront costs of energy conservation upgrades.
 Government's Plan : The government will cover the initial costs, and homeowners will repay the government over the next decade through property tax surcharges.
 Goal : The plan aims to promote home energy conservation by removing the barrier of upfront costs.

The argument assumes that removing the upfront cost barrier will encourage homeowners to take advantage of the opportunity and make energy-saving upgrades, which will lead to energy conservation.

A. Many homeowners in the province have not made energy conservation upgrades mainly because they are unaware of the potential savings.  
This option suggests that the issue might be a lack of awareness rather than just the upfront cost. If people don't know about the benefits, they might not participate in the plan, but this doesn't directly challenge the plan's effectiveness in terms of removing the cost barrier.
  This weakens the plan somewhat but not strongly ;  it doesn't directly address the plan's financial terms.

B. For most home upgrades under the plan, the annual property tax surcharges will be lower than the annual savings from reduced energy usage.  
This suggests that the financial benefits of the plan are solid, as homeowners will save more than they pay in surcharges.
  This actually strengthens the plan  , so it's not the correct choice.

C. Other provincial governments have successfully implemented several other less expensive methods of promoting home energy conservation.  
This introduces the idea that alternative methods might be more cost-effective, but it doesn't directly undermine the effectiveness of the plan itself. It only suggests a comparison without challenging whether this specific plan will work.
  This is not a strong reason to doubt the plan’s effectiveness .

D. Even if a few homeowners make energy conservation upgrades, the province's overall energy usage will still be excessive.  
This option addresses the overall energy usage, but the plan's focus is on promoting energy conservation among individual homeowners, not immediately reducing overall provincial energy usage. The argument's goal is to get homeowners to adopt the upgrades.
  This doesn’t directly challenge the plan’s effectiveness in terms of getting homeowners to make upgrades  , so it is irrelevant.

E. Most banks in the province readily offer loans for home renovations on much more favorable terms than those the government plans to offer.  
This is the  strongest option  because it directly undermines the plan by suggesting that homeowners have access to better financial options. If banks offer loans on more favorable terms, homeowners are unlikely to opt for the government's less attractive terms. This could lead to the plan being ineffective because homeowners would prefer bank loans, rendering the government's effort pointless.
  This directly challenges the plan’s effectiveness   by questioning its competitiveness in solving the problem of upfront costs.

The correct answer is E   because it provides the strongest reason to doubt the effectiveness of the government's plan by offering an alternative that homeowners might prefer over the government's solution.

Lomna · Answer

Hi, while Option E looks great as an option, I would like to clarify something.

It mentions that banks offer loans for "home renovation". Is it reasonable to assume that this includes "energy conservation upgrades"? It feels as if it might be unrelated.

siddhantvarma · Answer

Lomna  let me take a shot at this. I'm sure there will be others who'd feel the same about E.

At first glance, it seems a stretch to assume that " home renovation " will include " energy conservation upgrades ."

For now, let's break down E further:

Home renovations could involve things like kitchen remodels, while energy conservation upgrades refer specifically to projects like improving insulation, installing energy-efficient windows, or upgrading heating systems. However, the assumption we would need to make for Option E to weaken the argument is that energy conservation upgrades fall under the  broader  category of  home renovations . For a moment, let's  assume  this to be true. If energy conservation upgrades are a type of home renovation, then the availability of more favourable loans from banks would indeed undercut the effectiveness of the government's plan, since homeowners would prefer better loan terms from banks rather than using the government's option.

Now coming back to the assumption, the only way we could say this isn't the correct answer is by negating our assumption. On the GMAT, it   could be   reasonable   to assume that energy conservation upgrades could be part of broader home renovations (e.g., replacing windows or improving insulation would often be considered renovations). So we can assume this, but the assumption by itself shouldn't be the sole factor that helps us decide this answer choice. So now if this assumption feels uncomfortable, it’s worth noting that none of the other answer choices provide a stronger, direct challenge to the plan’s effectiveness.  Therefore, E still remains the best answer.  So it was safe to assume this after all.

One thing I'd like to point out is that the source of this question is "Other" which means this question isn't coming from GMAT's official archives, any sample tests or even actual tests. If you simply eliminated E because it's an assumption that stretches too far, but you could see it being the best answer choice if the assumption holds, it might be worth asking yourself - "What's the reason I picked the other answer choice?". Is it merely because it was the best of the remaining 4 options that you were left with when you eliminated E? If that's the case, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

doitrahul · Answer

Option E. Even if loan is available is much cheaper rate from banks than from government, still the goal to promote energy conservation is achieved.

Option A. It presents the main reason for the issue is lack of awareness rather than financial problem. Hence government step to pay the upfront cost is a failure to solve the problem.

Hence for me choice A is the strongest weakner. Please review my reasoning.

miag · Answer

Hi,

Let me try to help clarify on this: The government’s plan assumes that homeowners are not upgrading due to upfront cost barriers. Choice A undermines this assumption by showing that the real problem is lack of awareness, meaning the plan fails to address the true cause. Choice E merely suggests a more attractive alternative exists but does not show that the government’s plan would be ineffective, making A the strongest weakener.

Hope this helps!

MacT750 · Answer

but isn't it already stated that main problem is of affordability. A talks about other issue. we cant challenge the fact that affordability is main concern here no?

miag · Answer

Hi,

Your understanding is correct in the sense that the main problem is of affordability.
 We are not contradicting affordability being a problem. We are instead trying to show that it’s not the main problem, which is enough to weaken the plan. Choice A is correct because it shows the government is solving the wrong problem, even though affordability is a problem.

Hope this helps!

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

MacT750 ,

Let me try my hands on this.

The author states that there are energy conservation facilities, i.e take an example of India, where govt is promoting solar-related schemes. This scheme is effective in the long run; however, to set up the solar facilities at your home, it takes a hefty sum of initial cost. Now the Indian govt wants to promote this scheme, and for that they are paying the initial cost, but they need their money back over the decade with interest.

For an Indian govt plan to be effective, these homeowners who can't afford the initial cost have to make use of the government scheme, right?

The question asks to doubt the effectiveness of govt plan to pay the initial price, but they need money back with interest.

By looking at the question stem, the first thing striked my mind is what would be the interest rate, even if the upgrades start paying for themselves in the long run, will the applied interest rate be less than the savings from the upgrades? Also, I doubted the term Long run, is the payment over the decade can be called long term?

With these 2 questions, I started analyzing the answer choices.

Option A says that many homeowners are not upgrading because they are unaware of the savings. Ok, fine. Let's say the government brought the plan and started promoting it, but when they were promoting, homeowners noticed the interest rate and the period. Since we are not clear about these two terms, homeowners will remain skeptical, and they may or may not use the scheme. So I kept it but didnt eliminated.

Option E says most  banks in the province readily offer loans for home renovations on much more favorable terms than those the government plans to offer. If we have a better plan available, why would we opt for govt plan? I found this better than A, based on the questions that struck my mind. Options E talks about the government plan and also provides the offering comparison. So vote is for E rather than A.

Although homeowners' energy conservation upgrades often pay for them

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Although homeowners' energy conservation upgrades often pay for them

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