#7 - In Western economies, more energy is used to operate

[hahahahn]

Hi! Why wouldnt the correct amswer choice be E?
What I took away was that the energy savings came about due to "new building technologies". So when the conclusion stated that, "50 to 100 yrs from now they will save more than 200 billion per year", I took this to mean that more new energy efficient technologies will come out to build upon and increase the savings present today.

Or is it irrelevant because choice E mentions "new scientific principles" that werent mentioned in the stimulus?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, hahahahn,

Good questions! The first thing to focus on here is the question task. It is an assumption question. This means that we are instructed to find a necessary but unstated belief the author must have in order for her conclusion to be valid.

Let's focus on the conclusion. The author concludes that the current efficiencies in use will lead to even greater savings in the future.

Now let's assess the evidence. To back up this conclusion, the author cites current savings that these efficiencies have created.

Pause for a moment to describe what's right and wrong about this argument. First of all, is the current evidence sound and relevant? In other words, do we have good reasons to believe these efficiencies create savings? It certainly seems that way. The first couple statements in the stimulus provide ample evidence that these efficiencies have created savings in the present day.

Now let's move to the next logical step: using the evidence provided, can we get from where we are right not—several billion dollars in savings—to where the author tells us we're going to go—$200 billion in savings in 50 to 100 years?

Where's the evidence? I don't see much good evidence to back up this point. How do we know for sure this stuff is going to continue to work in the future? How did we come up with this $200 billion figure?

That's where the issue is.

We are asked what one of the author's assumptions is. Let's remind ourselves what we noticed wrong with this argument:

1. How do we know for sure this stuff is going to continue to work in the future?
2. How did we come up with this $200 billion figure?

What would the author have to believe in order for this argument to make sense? The author must believe that:

1. These efficiencies are going to continue to be great cost savers for the next 50 to 100 years.
2. These efficiencies are going to be so super that we're going to ramp up the savings all the way too a cool $200 billion.

What do we need in an answer choice? We need an answer that will describe one of these essential beliefs the author has. This is the definition of an assumption task.

(A) This is the credited answer choice. The author must believe these technologies are going to continue to be available and cost effective for the next 50 to 100 years. Why must the author believe this? Do the Assumption Negation Test™. What if these technologies all became too expensive to use over the next 50 to 100 years. Would we be saving money then? No. The savings wouldn't work out, certainly not up to $200 billion. Therefore, this is an essential belief of the author, a necessary assumption, and the correct answer.

(B) This answer is irrelevant. Maybe a crisis happens. Maybe one doesn't. Either way, the author doesn't have to believe anything about oil crises for her argument to work.

(C) What if buildings become less important? What if they do? Either way, our argument is unaffected or only marginally affected.

(D) This answer gives a precise figure in the amount of the energy bills in the future. There's that $200 billion number! This is a trap answer. The information in this answer would certainly strengthen the conclusion! If we knew for sure that bills would be $200 billion less in the future, I'd feel comfortable saying that backs up our claim that these technologies will be helpful in the future. However, do we have to believe that energy bills are going to be lower by this $200 billion amount? No we do not. The author only concludes that the efficiencies will lead to $200 billion in savings. The bills might be considerably higher, but they could still be $200 billion less than what they would have been without these efficiencies. Therefore, this answer is not an assumption but only a hypothetical helpful statement.

(E) You got this one right in noting that new technologies do not come up in the stimulus. That's not our concern here. We're only interested in the savings generated by the current efficiencies, nothing else. Therefore this is irrelevant.

Good job with your analysis. I hope this helps!

[argumentace]

P. 374 conclusion: “ 50 to 100 years from now they will save more than $200 billion per year”

Correct Answer A: “ technology used to make buildings energy efficient will not become prohibitively expensive over the next century.”

Can someone please explain further why A is the correct answer? I think I’m having trouble really understanding how to pick a correct assumption answer, although I keep in mind that a correct assumption answer should be one that the author is fully committed to in the argument. i had trouble picking any answer because all the answers seemed like a stretch, and I could see all being used to help the argument. I didn’t want to pick A because the author had not mentioned technology expenses, just energy expenses. Could this have been something the author was assuming? Sure, but so could E “ energy-efficient technologies based on new scientific principles will be introduced in the next 50 to 100 years”. Since the author mentioned “ new building tech technologies” in the stimulus with choosing answer E I could see the argument that the author assumes the development of new technologies helps to push energy efficiency and savings.

[Stephanie Oswalt]

P. 374 conclusion: “ 50 to 100 years from now they will save more than $200 billion per year”

Correct Answer A: “ technology used to make buildings energy efficient will not become prohibitively expensive over the next century.”

Can someone please explain further why A is the correct answer? I think I’m having trouble really understanding how to pick a correct assumption answer, although I keep in mind that a correct assumption answer should be one that the author is fully committed to in the argument. i had trouble picking any answer because all the answers seemed like a stretch, and I could see all being used to help the argument. I didn’t want to pick A because the author had not mentioned technology expenses, just energy expenses. Could this have been something the author was assuming? Sure, but so could E “ energy-efficient technologies based on new scientific principles will be introduced in the next 50 to 100 years”. Since the author mentioned “ new building tech technologies” in the stimulus with choosing answer E I could see the argument that the author assumes the development of new technologies helps to push energy efficiency and savings.

Hi,

I have moved your question to the thread discussing this topic. Please review the discussion starting on page 1 of this thread https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?f=576&t=463 and let us know if you have any additional questions.

Thank you,

[graciekang]

hi i have a question about AC (A). i get why AC (D) is wrong, but I kinda don't get why (A) is right. The question is: Even if the cost of technology itself becomes significantly expensive, if the efficiency of the technology becomes so high that the cost saved by the efficiency is higher than the cost of using the technology, isn't it possible that the total saving become more than 200b dollars..?!

In other words, isn't it possible that (cost of using technology)-(cost saved by using technology)=-200b dollars???if they keep using the technology even tho it got so expensive!

I'm rly confused:(

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Gracie!

Let's break down our stimulus a bit:

Premise 1: in Western economies, more energy is used to operate buildings than transportation

Premise 2: since the oil crisis of 1973, homes and offices have become more efficient at using energy, causing energy consumption to decline

Premise 3: new building technologies that make energy use more efficient have cut billions of dollars in energy bills

Conclusion: since energy savings are billions of dollars today, we can conclude that years from now, they will save more than $200 billion dollars per year in energy consumption.

Our most important Premise is Premise 3-- it establishes that a) we have technology that allows us to drastically cut our energy use and spending, and b) this has saved us billions of dollars already. To draw our conclusion, we have to assume that we will be able to continue cutting energy use and saving money the way we are now, if not more drastically, in order for use to save more than $200 billion dollars per year in energy savings 50 to 100 years down the line.

Now, let's look at Answer Choice A: "technology used to make buildings energy efficient will not become prohibitively expensive over the next century."

Let's parse this out-- let's say it becomes way too expensive to keep our energy consumption as efficient as it is right now. We will no longer be able afford to use as little energy as we are now, meaning that our consumption and spending on energy would increase, thus meaning we would no longer be saving these billions of dollars. That would make it impossible to save upwards of $200 billion per year 50 to 100 years from now. Therefore, we have to assume that the energy efficiency technology does not become prohibitively expensive, or we will not be able to save billions of dollars in energy consumption years from now.

I hope this helps!