Q4 - State researchers have found

[erho]

Is c the correct answer b/c it's talking about cost rather than consumption?

[ohthatpatrick]

I don't think that cost vs. consumption is the issue. I think that (C) doesn't support the two behavioral causes cited in the conclusion:
reduced standards of living
&
changes in how people spend their time

A) change in how people spend their time
B) change in how people spend their time
D) reduced standard of living
E) reduced standard of living

With (C), I think reduced costs means reduced consumption (unless the energy company for some reason lowered the price of energy for just those 39% of households).

But the people in those households haven't changed how they spend their time (as far as we've been told), and they haven't reduced their standards of living (as far as we've been told).

They're still behaving as they always did; the only difference is that now that their homes are more energy efficient, they don't need to consume as much energy.

Remember the conclusion wasn't "there has been a decline in home energy consumption". Rather, it was "the decline is due to X and Y".

Hope this helps.

[ivank]

I know this is a strange question, but the reason I missed the question was simply because I did not fully understand the meaning of the C. Can you translate to me what it means in English "having relatively inexpensive work done"? I mean what work are they talking about and how does that flow into efficiency? Technically speaking, what inexpensive work would improve efficiency of the hearing systems? I understand I might be digging too deep, but LSAT should not go beyond common sense and it seems like I am not picking up on theirs. I could not fathom the statement in my head and hence I did not pick this answer...

Thanks in advance.

[ohthatpatrick]

Well, you're about to expose my total ignorance to how homes are constructed, how heating systems work, home repair, science, etc.

Maybe people changed out the air filter in their heating system ... a relatively inexpensive piece of work (~$50) ... but this makes the heating system run more efficiently, so now their monthly heating bills are $10 lower.

Maybe people put towels or caulk or something else into all the cracks of their doors/windows, so that cold air from the outside doesn't leak inside. That would be relatively inexpensive work and it would make the heating system more efficient because the warm air wouldn't be escaping to the outside (and the cold outside air wouldn't be leaking inside).

Hope those help.

Otherwise, just lean on (D) saying "lowered temperature" and (E) saying "shorter showers", indicating a lower standard of living.

(C) says "improved efficiency" which doesn't sound like a lower standard.

[ivank]

Well, you're about to expose my total ignorance to how homes are constructed, how heating systems work, home repair, science, etc.

Maybe people changed out the air filter in their heating system ... a relatively inexpensive piece of work (~$50) ... but this makes the heating system run more efficiently, so now their monthly heating bills are $10 lower.

Maybe people put towels or caulk or something else into all the cracks of their doors/windows, so that cold air from the outside doesn't leak inside. That would be relatively inexpensive work and it would make the heating system more efficient because the warm air wouldn't be escaping to the outside (and the cold outside air wouldn't be leaking inside).

Hope those help.

Otherwise, just lean on (D) saying "lowered temperature" and (E) saying "shorter showers", indicating a lower standard of living.

(C) says "improved efficiency" which doesn't sound like a lower standard.

Improved efficiency does always seem like a reduced standard of life during the first times you implement it But it your answer certainly makes sense. Thanks much.

[Beckhama]

Well, you're about to expose my total ignorance to how homes are constructed, how heating systems work, home repair, science, etc.

Maybe people changed out the air filter in their heating system ... a relatively inexpensive piece of work (~$50) ... but this makes the heating system run more efficiently, so now their monthly heating bills are $10 lower.

Maybe people put towels or caulk or something else into all the cracks of their doors/windows, so that cold air from the outside doesn't leak inside. That would be relatively inexpensive work and it would make the heating system more efficient because the warm air wouldn't be escaping to the outside (and the cold outside air wouldn't be leaking inside).

Hope those help.

Otherwise, just lean on (D) saying "lowered temperature" and (E) saying "shorter showers", indicating a lower standard of living.

(C) says "improved efficiency" which doesn't sound like a lower standard.

Improved efficiency does always seem like a reduced standard of life during the first times you implement it But it your answer certainly makes sense. Thanks much.

Replying to provide more clarity to future test takers that may have gotten it wrong in a similar nature of this poster.

Efficiency essentially means accomplishing something at the lowest cost possible. In the context of this argument, C states that consumers were able to lower costs by making their heaters more efficient, meaning that heaters either maintained or increased their heat consumption at a cheaper energy expense. Again, the casual argument in the stimulus specifies behavior that either lowers standards of living or a changes time spent. We can rule out any change in time spent. If anything, C indicates a higher standard of living, not a lowered one.

[wxpttbh]

Sometimes, it is hard to find the real issue of a strengthen question. I thought cost vs. consumption is the issue for this question

[ghorizon09]

Ohthatpatrick is an lsat master in my opinion, I've learned a lot from you. Many thanks!

The conclusion states that the drop in consumption is based on 2 factors: 1 reduced standards of living and, 2 the way people spend their time.

C. attributes the reduction not to factors 1 or 2 but to a 3rd factor "having work done"

[LeeJ891]

I don't think that cost vs. consumption is the issue. I think that (C) doesn't support the two behavioral causes cited in the conclusion:
reduced standards of living
&
changes in how people spend their time

A) change in how people spend their time
B) change in how people spend their time
D) reduced standard of living
E) reduced standard of living

With (C), I think reduced costs means reduced consumption (unless the energy company for some reason lowered the price of energy for just those 39% of households).

But the people in those households haven't changed how they spend their time (as far as we've been told), and they haven't reduced their standards of living (as far as we've been told).

They're still behaving as they always did; the only difference is that now that their homes are more energy efficient, they don't need to consume as much energy.

Remember the conclusion wasn't "there has been a decline in home energy consumption". Rather, it was "the decline is due to X and Y".

Hope this helps.

I see why (C) makes sense, but in (A) doesn't them buying portable heaters directly contradict the premise of energy consumption going down? If people are buying more heaters, more energy is being used. Thanks for all of your posts

[Laura Damone]

The idea behind A is that people are buying portable heaters to heat a limited number of rooms in lieu of heating their entire houses. So, buying more heaters doesn't mean using more energy.

Hope this helps!