Q19 - Analyst: Any new natural-gas-powered electrical

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Most Strongly Support

Stimulus Breakdown:
New Station → Pipeline + Water + Transmission Lines + No Townie Complaints
Analyst's Country: Transmission lines, but pipelines/water would all receive complaints.

Answer Anticipation:
Based on the requirements for a new station, things aren't looking good.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This would survive my first pass, but I'd eventually eliminate it because it's hard to infer what could be true about the future. This issue would become more apparent after reading the correct answer.

(B) Out of scope. The stimulus doesn't talk about what impact building it would have. Just because the townies might complain doesn't mean they'd move.

(C) Bingo. This is similar to (A) and my prephrase, but it brings in the idea that things could change in the future. After reading it, I'd note what's wrong with (A) and eliminate that answer.

(D) Out of scope. The stimulus is about new natural-gas-powered stations, not existing ones.

(E) Out of scope. We can't infer other opinions based on known ones (even if you think these two opinions align, people have confusing and contradictory opinions all the time). There also appears to be sufficient transmission lines already; no one is discussing building more.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Predictions about the future are suspect in Inference questions.

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

This was really confusing me on the actual exam because of this sentence: "run the vicinity of only three of our large bodies of water" . Does this sentence mean we only have 3 large bodies of water in total or does it mean we currently we only have pipelines near 3 of our large bodies of water (and we still have other large bodies of water----just unconnected by the pipes/).

On the exam, I went with the former but I am assuming it should be the latter? If it was the case that it was the former, then would "A" be correct because we know that being near a body of water is a necessary condition but we also know construction will never happen since there are currently residents near our only 3 bodies of water who would object to the construction and there are no other bodies of water we can use; hence, future energy needs can not be met by natural gas . However, if we go with the latter then Choice "C" is better since it still opens the possibility there might be other lakes without residents nearby for us to use and we get there via an expansion of the pipes to these new water bodies.

How do we interpret a sentence like the one I quoted and avoid a similar confusion in the future because even during review the "only" placement in the sentence just seems to be confusing. It seems more straightforward if it had said " pipelines only run in the vicinity of three of our large bodies of water near residents " [ the pipelines run in 3 bodies of water but we could have more bodies of water] or ' pipelines run only in the vicinity of our only three bodies of water [pipelines run only near the 3 bodies of water and are our only 3 bodies of water].

[ohthatpatrick]

Correct, the latter meaning is the intended meaning.

If you moved the "only" as you suggested, it would have that same meaning.

Saying "only three" isn't a conditional use of "only".

It's like, "Awww, Mom. You're giving me only three Skittles?"

I could have interchangeably said, "Aww, Mom. You're only giving me three Skittles?"

Even though the 2nd formulation sounds more like our typical speech patterns, grammatically the 1st one is better, since the adverb 'only' is really modifying 3.

THREE is the paltry amount we're modifying with "only".

Another way to look at this is just to think about what it means to say,
" .... only three of our large bodies of water"

Does that mean, "We only have three large bodies of water"?

It's more like, "Hey, John. How many of our large bodies of water have you visited? Whoa ... only three of them?"

Or, if you began a sentence that way, you'd say
"Only three of our large bodies of water permit rafting"

Again, it conveys the possibility that more large bodies of water exist.

[ZarkaS555]

I'm confused by why answer choice D is incorrect? Because if there were existing electrical generation stations near the water bodies, wouldn't they have been opposed by the residents and hence, deterring their construction?

[ohthatpatrick]

We're only allowed to use the rules / info presented, and the rule pertains to "any NEW station".

That is common to a lot of laws, where certain exceptions to the law get "grandfathered in", because they existed before the law was written.

It's possible that we built some stations near our large bodies of water BEFORE residents moved to that area.

This answer definitely has SOME support, but it's not as bank-able as (C).

For (D), we have to assume that
- there were residents present when any stations near our big bodies of water would have been built

- the same restraints on building applied back then

For (C), we don't have to assume anything.

[ShenW673]

Hi!

I am still having some trouble with answer choice C.

My prephrase was "No site would be suitable unless the system is expanded or residents change their opinion." But answer choice C only gave me half of that, which, for me, is similar to saying "No site would be suitable unless residents change their opinion." I am wondering what kind of situation is considered changeable? And when an incomplete conditional logic is considered correct?