Q17 - Using fossil energy more efficiently

[stephanieledesma88]

Can someone explain why E is the correct answer? I am completely lost on the entire question. I chose C. Re-reading the question, I can sort of understand why E weakens the objection, but im still frustrated with the question all together.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree, it's a weird question.

Essentially we have,

Position 1: The govt. should institute tough standards that would force the least energy-efficient products or practices in any market to be removed. After all, energy efficiency is in everyone's interest, and we're unlikely to see major improvements without the govt. taking action.

Position 2: The free market should make decisions on energy use. (not the government)

We're supposed to weaken Position 2, but it's hard to predict/anticipate how we'll go about doing so. Position 2 doesn't have any argument core, because there's no premise. It's just a claim that decisions on energy use should be left to the free market.

We'll need an answer that suggests that leaving energy decisions to the free market is a bad idea.

A) This doesn't seem to suggest anything bad about the free market. We might say it weakens ever so slightly, because it suggests that we shouldn't expect the free market to all at once make the changes to achieve maximum energy efficiency. Since the alternative is govt. action, which certainly wouldn't achieve MAXIMUM energy efficiency ALL AT ONCE, this idea doesn't seem like a great rebuttal.

B) This strengthens the argument. This makes it seem like free market consumers are cognizant of energy efficiency, for at least some types of products.

C) This feels to me like it kinda weakens by suggesting that there's definitely a role the govt. could play in the energy industry: that of helping to create the infrastructure for new types of energy. However, was that the scope of the argument / objection? No, we were talking about using energy more efficiently, not creating new modes. And we're debating whether the free market or govt. is better suited to make decisions about energy use. This answer doesn't steer us in either direction on that issue.

D) This definitely strengthens the argument. It shows how the free market could steer us towards greater energy efficiency, via consumers' reactions to higher energy prices.

E) This weakens because it shows how free market decisions that greatly impact energy efficiency could often be made with total disregard for energy efficiency. In a sense, this is the opposite of (D). (D) suggested that consumers will be motivated to buy energy efficient commodities because they will otherwise have to pay for more energy if they buy a less-efficient alternative. (E) meanwhile, suggests that some consumers [landlords] are making purchases for which the eventual energy-use is totally irrelevant to them. Thus, they will choose to buy an object based on price.

We might say that the original Objection was assuming that "the free market has some motive to decide on more energy-efficient options".

(E) attacks this assumption with a specific example of a free market, energy-relevant decision that comes with no motive to choose the more efficient option.

Hope this helps.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

So if I understand you correctly Patrick, (A) is incorrect only because it suggests that the free-market could not achieve energy maximum efficiency all at once ? i.e, a degree issue?

[ohthatpatrick]

I wouldn't say it's only a degree issue, but I try to just mention the lowest-hanging fruit in terms of answer choice elimination.

Would anyone EVER think that society can make changes to achieve MAXIMUM efficiency ALL AT ONCE?

It really doesn't matter what topic we're discussing ... it's unrealistic enough that we would ever achieve max efficiency ... adding on to that the idea that we go from status quo to max efficiency in an instant is basically an insane notion.

So saying "it would be unrealistic to hold this insane notion" is just such a boring truth that it's hard for it to have any effect on any discussion.

But I would add that "society" in (A) is ambiguous -- does that point us to the market or to the government ... or both?

That's a really fuzzy term that I was choosing to interpret as the market, in order to give (A) it's most favorable reading, but "society" is a pretty terrible match for "the operation of the market", since "the operation of the government" also falls under the umbrella of "society".