#4 - State researchers have found that since the oil price

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

StrengthenX-CE. The correct answer choice is (C)

State researchers argue that reduced standards of living and changes in how people spend time are the causes, or the explanations, for the decline in home energy consumption.

Even though you might have interpreted this argument to suggest that the decline in consumption was the causal factor, the argument states that the decline "has been achieved through" reduced standards and changes, which means those, not the decline, is the cause.

It is possible to say that the argument also puts forward the idea that price causes the reduced standards of living and changes in behavior, which result in decreased energy consumption. That interpretation is consistent with the argument, and the correct choice will still follow.

This argument is causal, and you should look for the standard ways of strengthening a causal argument. Since this is an EXCEPT question, there will be four strengthening choices, and one that weakens or does nothing.

Answer choice (A): If families are concentrating their activities in a limited number of rooms, that is a change in how they spend time, and probably constitutes a reduced standard of living. This choice strengthens the argument, and is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Going to the library or community center more often is a change in how people spend time, and during winter months it is probably in order to avoid energy expenditures on heating at home, so this strengthens the argument and is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice suggests that people are neither decreasing their standards of living nor changing their activities, but simply found another way to decrease their energy consumption. If new technology is the cause for the reduction, the argument is weakened.

Answer choice (D): Accepting an unusually cold indoor temperature constitutes a reduced standard of living, probably to save energy on heating, so this choice strengthens the conclusion, and is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): Showering less could constitute a decrease in standard of living, so this response confirms the cause-effect relationship in the stimulus, and is incorrect.

[Sdaoud17]

Now when I read the stimulus it looked easy to understand , the Conclusion is C-F

Lower Energy Consumption reduce standard of living + Change the way people spend their time .


Now when I read the Answer choices, I was looking for answer that doesn't strength the stimulus either weaken or has no affect.
and when I got to C , It was shows that decrease energy cost ( which is in another words , Decline in home energy consumption) changing the heating systems


Can you explain how am I wrong ?

Thank you

[Nikki Siclunov]

I'm not sure I follow your interpretation of the stimulus. The author is trying to explain the inverse correlation between oil prices and home energy consumption. Simply put, she observes that home energy consumption decreased, and proposes an explanation as to how that occurred: either the standard of living decreased, or people changed how they spend their time. Thus, the causation goes like this:

Decreased SOL or change in how people spend their time (cause) Lower Energy consumption (effect)

(C) does not strengthen this argument. In fact, it weakens it a little by showing an alternative means of reducing energy consumption: improved efficiency of people's heating systems. This was accomplished inexpensively, suggesting that these people did not need to lower their standard of living.

Does that make sense?

[Sdaoud17]

ok My question now , Is would you agree that changing the heating system is an example of reducing standard of living.

when I hear "reducing standard of living" means to live in a not expensive life style and changing the heating system is an example of it. people change their heating system so they dont spend a lot money on heat.

SO how come C is weakening the stimulus ?

[Dave Killoran]

Answer choice (C) weakens the argument because it provides an alternate cause for the Lower Energy consumption. In this instance, having a new,. more efficient heating system provides that alternate cause.

I wouldn't agree at all that a newer heating system indicates a lower standard of living (sorry to be disagreeable ). If anything, it might indicate a higher standard of living, as a new heating system is not free, and thus requires the expenditure of some free cash to purchase.

As a reference here, a lower standard of living would be something like the heating system broke and it wasn't repaired or replaced at all due to financial constraints.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[Sweetgpeach]

Logical Reasoning Questions Training ( Prep Test 1-20) p. 106 Question 2

...Answer C vs. D...why?

Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge.

Cheers,
Georgia

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Georgia,

Thanks for the question! Let's start by looking at the argument itself. The argument gives us two facts:

• 1. There were oil price increases in the 1970s.
  
  2. Since then there has been a decline in home energy consumption.

On the basis of those two statements, the researchers draw a causal conclusion:

• Reduced standards of living and changes in the way people spend their time caused almost all of the decline in home energy consumption.

So we have a causal conclusion, and that should immediately make you feel skeptical of the validity of that conclusion. The question stem is a Strengthen Except, meaning that the four incorrect answers will Strengthen the argument, and the one correct answer will either Weaken the Argument or have no effect on the argument.


Let's now look at answer choices (C) and (D):

• Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer actually weakens the argument because it suggests an alternate cause for the lowered consumption. In this case, it wasn't a lowered standard of living or a change in the use of time that caused the lower usage, but rather more efficient equipment that caused the lower usage.
  
  Answer choice (D): This strengthens the argument because it supports the idea that a "reduced standard of living" played a role in lowering home energy consumption. If people kept the house cooler than what they were accustomed to on cold days, that's a decreased quality of life issue. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Georgia,

Thanks for your question!

The author argues that the oil price increases have caused a decline in energy consumption, almost all of it achieved through reduced standards of living and changes in how we spend our time. Four of the answer choices will support this conclusion. The correct answer choice will not.

Answer choice (D) supports the conclusion: if most households maintained a lower indoor temperature than they had been accustomed to, this corroborates the theory that they have reduced their standard of living.

Answer choice (C) does not support the conclusion: if a significant number of households were able to offset the increased energy costs by making their heating systems more efficient (at a low cost), then these households did NOT reduce their standard of living, nor did they change how they spend their time. This answer choice does not support the conclusion, and is therefore correct.

Hope this helps! Let me know.

[jerry]

I picked E for my first answer, because although showering for shorter periods is a change in time spent, it doesn't necessarily translate to a decline in home energy usage. For that, we would have to be told that the showers are heated, or that the people weren't taking cold showers previously.

But I do see how C makes sense, since it doesn't involve a reduction in living standards or a change in lifestyle.

[Brook Miscoski]

Hey, Jerry, if we're going to be honest, there's no right answer, since doing that work on the house involved changes in the way that someone spent or was going to spend time.

But in this case, just remember that if you spot a choice that tends to attack the gist of the argument on a "strengthen except," just pick that choice. The gist of the argument is that people gave something up to save energy. (C) clearly attacks that idea.

For (E), it's a bit of a stretch to wonder about whether the showers are heated when (C) is an assault on the main thrust of the argument. Even though on the LSAT a logical opposite is just as good a choice as a polar opposite on an except question, do be responsive when you see the polar opposite.