CR : wind and solar power

[manisjce]

Source: MGMAT CAT

In response to the increasing cost of producing energy through traditional means, such as combustion, many utility companies have begun investing in renewable energy sources, chiefly wind and solar power, hoping someday to rely on them completely and thus lower energy costs. The utility companies claim that although these sources require significant initial capital investment, they will provide stable energy supplies at low cost. As a result, these sources will be less risky for the utilities than nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil, and coal, whose prices can fluctuate dramatically according to availability.

The claim of the utility companies presupposes which of the following?
a)The public will embrace the development of wind and solar power.
b)No new deposits of gas, oil, and coal will be discovered in the near future.
c)Weather patterns are consistent and predictable.
d)The necessary technology for conversion to wind and solar power is not more expensive than the technology needed to create energy through combustion.
e)Obtaining energy from nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil and coal, cannot be made less risky.

OA : C

OA Explanation:
(C) CORRECT. If we assume that weather patterns are consistent and predictable, then with the stated premises, we can conclude that solar and wind power will be less risky than oil and gas. If, on the other hand, weather patterns are not consistent and predictable, then solar and wind power are not reliable and thus will not provide "stable energy supplies at low cost." Thus, the argument's conclusion directly depends on this assumption.

My question here is the basic logic of assumption is an unstated premise that needs to be true for the conclusion to be valid.

But in the argument , it is already given as a premise that they will provide stable energy supplies. Then why we need to again assume that the Weather patterns are consistent and predictable (i.e it will be stable) ?

[tim]

No. "they will provide stable energy supplies" is not a premise; it is the conclusion. In order to reach this conclusion, we need an assumption that ensures stability..

[manisjce]

Hi ,

if claim of the utility companies is the sub conclusion, then it acts as the premise for arriving at the main conclusion right ?

Main conclusion : these sources will be less risky for the utilities than nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil, and coal, whose prices can fluctuate dramatically according to availability

Claim is different from a belief or judgment or are they same? Please clarify.How do we differentiate among claim, conclusion,belief and premise. This distinction is very confusing

[manisjce]

Hi,

Could anyone clarify the below

Claim is different from a belief or judgment or are they same? Please clarify.How do we differentiate among claim, conclusion,belief and premise. This distinction is very confusing

[jnelson0612]

Here's a really simple argument that will help us:
The new restaurant only serves vegetarian food, and surely no one will want to eat vegetarian food. Thus, the new restaurant will fail.

In GMAT land, a premise is a piece of information that we use to draw a conclusion. Premises always are provided because without them we cannot reach a conclusion. They can be either facts (evidence) or opinions (claims or beliefs). In this case, the premises consist of:
1)the fact that the new restaurant only serves vegetarian food, and
2) the belief/claim that no one will want to eat vegetarian food.

The conclusion is something that is supported by the facts in the argument. It is either the main idea of the argument or a statement that can be logically drawn from the premises stated in the argument. In this case, it is the idea that the new restaurant will fail.

Hope this helps!

[rahulajith86]

I found two conclusions in the passage:-

1. they will provide stable energy supplies

2.As a result, these sources will be less risky for the utilities than nonrenewable sources


I picked (2) as the final conclusion. The reason i did that was because Conclusion (1) leads to Conclusion (2) . Hence (2) is the final conclusion. I got this from MGAT CR strategy book. Can someone tell me why this cannot be applied here ???

[tim]

Technically you are correct that "they will provide stable energy supplies" is an intermediate conclusion in the broader argument. However, the question specifically asks us about that conclusion, NOT the main one, so it doesn't really matter which conclusion is which. All that matters is that we answer the question that is being asked.

[adt29]

Hi,

I picked D as the answer as I thought the conclusion of the argument is that utility companies expect to use renewable forms of energy at a lower cost.

Answer choice D directly addresses this fact by stating that the technology to switch is NOT more expensive than the process by which current energy is produced.

If it were NOT the case that this fact was true, then companies wouldn't be able to produce energy at a lower cost by switching to solar and wind power.

I had narrowed it down to C or D and picked D for the reason above.

Please let me know why my reasoning for picking D was incorrect.

Thank you in advance!

[jlucero]

Be careful on what your goal is here:

"The claim of the utility companies presupposes which of the following?"

This is a tricky way of saying, "what is the assumption here?" We aren't trying to strengthen or weaken the argument. We are trying to find what the conclusion relies on. For that reason, our conclusion has little to do with what the cost of these two technologies are today. The argument even leaves open the option that the cost of wind and solar energy will one day be reduced. Rather, the conclusion "wind and solar energy will provide stable energy supplies" depends on the assumption that wind and solar energy is stable.

[Levent-g]

Hi Tim,

I understand your point but I am still confused:

Technically you are correct that "they will provide stable energy supplies" is an intermediate conclusion in the broader argument. However, the question specifically asks us about that conclusion, NOT the main one, so it doesn't really matter which conclusion is which. All that matters is that we answer the question that is being asked.

In all of the GMAT books I used it is said that when the Assumption of the right answer choice is negated the Conclusion will become false. With Conclusion I always understood that the Main Conclusion is meant and not any Intermediate Conclusion.

Furthermore I learned that the Main Conclusion is the final claim of the argument. Any intermediate conclusion is just a claim serving as a premises for the final claim. If this is true this Assumption would only destroy a premise.

Thanks for your response!

[RonPurewal]

In all of the GMAT books I used it is said that when the Assumption of the right answer choice is negated the Conclusion will become false.

No, not necessarily.

When you negate an assumption, the specific line of reasoning in the argument becomes invalid -- but the conclusion doesn't necessarily have to be false. It's quite possible that you could construct some other argument to establish the conclusion.

E.g.,
When it's cold, you should wear a jacket. Therefore, you should wear a jacket today.
--> An assumption here is "It's cold today."
If that's false, then this particular argument ceases to establish that you should wear a jacket today -- but it's very possible that you should still wear a jacket today, for some other reason that's unrelated to cold weather. (Maybe your jacket is awesome and fashionable. Maybe you're going on a trip and can't fit it in your suitcase. Maybe it's raining. Etc.)

[Levent-g]

OK, thanks Ron!

[RonPurewal]

OK, thanks Ron!

Sure.

[taxeschao]

I picked E based on the negation technique.
- Obtaining energy from nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil and coal, cannot be made less risky.
- Obtaining energy from nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil and coal, CAN be made less risky.

And I think it destroyed the conclusion that stated "these sources will be less risky for the utilities than nonrenewable sources".

Why is this wrong?

[RonPurewal]

The "risk" attested in the passage is a financial risk: Gas, oil, and coal are "risky" because their prices can fluctuate.

This risk is not related to the (presumably physical) risks involved in actually obtaining energy from these resources, as mentioned in choice E.