#19 - Analyst: Any new natural-gas-powered electrical

[Dave Killoran]

Hi!

I have read through the posts and have a question on why is D incorrect?

It seems to pass the Fact Test from the Stimulus because none of the four conditions to build new natural-gas-powered electrical generation station is satisfied thus there is currently no station near those three bodies of water. Could you point out what's the issue here?

Thank you!

Hi Adeline,

The information in the stimulus only applies to new natural-gas-powered electrical generation stations. We aren't told anything about previously existing natural-gas-powered electrical generation stations, and so you can't make the inference that (D) attempts to make.

Thanks!

[Adeline]

Hi Dave,
I see. I shouldn't have inferred too far! Thanks

[oadeboy1]

I'm still confused. Please review my logic


If "new" natural gas-powered electrical generation to be located close to a natural-gas
pipeline
AND
a large body of water for cooling
AND
transmission lines and needs to
AND
be situated in a region where residents "will not" oppose construction...



C- NO (negated ) site would be suitable for constructing a natural-gas-powered electrical station-----> NO(negated) existing system of natural-gas pipelines is expanded. Meaning if there is not a site that can be used to construct a natural-gas-powered electrical station then there is not an existing system of natural-gas pipelines is expanded. How can this necessary condition be proven? How does the stimulus support this rule? The expansion of a natural-gas pipeline is not discussed. The stimulus never says they are connected in any form. The stimulus only says doe if there is natural gas-powered electrical generation then the 4 requirements were fulfilled. Please break it down step-by-step. I really don't understand.


D - I don't have enough information to support this. I only know the rule regarding "new" natural gas-powered electrical generation". I don't think I can use this rule to say if one is already there are not right? ( If this is right why not)

Hi. I had a problem with this one too.

The logical flow is: Any "new" natural gas-powered electrical generation needs:

-- to be located close to a natural-gas pipeline
--a large body of water for cooling
-- transmission lines and needs to
-- be situated in a region where residents "will not" oppose construction...

It goes on to explain that the country is missing two of the elements needed. Although it has transmission lines, the lines are by bodies of water where residents in the vicinity "would" oppose any significant construction.

[/quote]

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi oadeboy,

Let's start with your question about answer choice (D) because it's more straightforward. We can't be sure of the information in that answer choice because our stimulus tells us nothing about existing stations. In a Must Be True question, we need to be able to draw the conclusion based on the information in the stimulus. If the stimulus doesn't provide that information, we cannot assume it. A longer way to think of these questions is "Based on what I just read, what else do I know?" It's critical that we are only relying on the stimulus for our answers here.

Before we look at answer choice (C), let's turn back to the stimulus. Your conception of our stimulus is correct. In order to have that new station, we need it to be located near a pipeline AND a large body of water AND transmission lines AND in a region where residents don't oppose construction. How do we create a contrapositve? Whenever you see "and" in a conditional, you negate it by flipping it to "or" (and vice versa). What does that look like here?

Not near a pipeline
OR
Not near a large body of water
OR
Not near transmission lines No new station
OR
Where residents oppose construction

In other words, if we are missing any single one of the requirements, we know we can't have a new station. Our stimulus triggers this contrapositive by telling us that the only places with large bodies of water are places where residents oppose construction. From that, we can conclude that there's nowhere to build our new station with existing pipelines.

That's all answer choice (C) says. We can't build a new generator under current conditions because the current pipelines near water are in places where residents oppose construction. So if we want to build a new generator, we would have to expand the pipelines to an area where residents don't oppose construction. That's the only way to have all the requirements met.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[AspenHerman]

HI!

Sorry to draw this discussion out, but how is C not adding new information?

I can see why it's the answer because every other answer it wrong, but I'm still not comfortable because the "expansion of the pipeline" makes it seem like it will expand beyond the the reach of the body of water, and thus the construction cannot happen. Am I putting too much work in drawing connections here?

Thanks!
Aspen

PT81: LR1 19

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Aspen,

It's not new information here because we know that the current pipeline would not work. Why? Because our stimulus tells us that the pipeline only goes near three bodies of water, and the community near each of those bodies of water would oppose the construction. That means there's no current place to put the generator station, and they'd need to expand the current pipeline in order to build one that met all the qualifications.

Hope that helps!

[emma.swaffer@gmail.com]

I know several people have asked already but I cannot find a solid answer anywhere. the stimulus states that the residents would oppose any significant construction projects near the bodies of water, and then the answer indicates that as long as the pipelines are expanded the site would be suitable, and we're all just assuming that the residents have no issue whatsoever with it. Can someone explain?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi emma.swaffer!

You're right that the stimulus tells us that "residents would oppose any significant construction projects" near the mentioned bodies of water.

Answer choice (C) is compatible with this. That answer choice states, "No site would be suitable for constructing a natural-gas-powered electrical station unless the existing system of natural-gas pipelines is expanded." So effectively this is saying there is no option for constructing the generation station--but there would be options if the pipelines were expanded. This isn't possible currently, as you correctly note, because residents would oppose it, but there's nothing saying that they will always be opposed. Perhaps their minds could be changed.

[LJAN12]

Hi emma.swaffer!

You're right that the stimulus tells us that "residents would oppose any significant construction projects" near the mentioned bodies of water.

Answer choice (C) is compatible with this. That answer choice states, "No site would be suitable for constructing a natural-gas-powered electrical station unless the existing system of natural-gas pipelines is expanded." So effectively this is saying there is no option for constructing the generation station--but there would be options if the pipelines were expanded. This isn't possible currently, as you correctly note, because residents would oppose it, but there's nothing saying that they will always be opposed. Perhaps their minds could be changed.

I'm having the same issue as Emma: (C) seems to suggest that, if we expand the pipeline system (to other bodies of water), the residents around these other bodies of water will not also be opposed. How is that acceptable? Am I reading (C) incorrectly?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

You are reading answer choice (C) in reverse, LJAN.

It's a conditional statement, so let's break it down using the unless equation.

No site will be suitable unless the existing system is expanded.

Suitable site existing system expanded

That doesn't mean that the system WILL be expanded. It doesn't say that there wouldn't potentially be opposition to any given site. It just means that if there is any site that would work, it would have to come from expanding the existing system. You seem to be reading it in reverse; that if the existing system is expanded, we'll be able to find a new site.

Hope that helps!