#16 - Tenants who do not have to pay their own electricity

[Ericpyne]

I had trouble with this problem as well. But to look at the conclusion, I notice we are dealing with a cause and effect relationship. The cause of making the tenants pay the electricity bill will be the result of energy conserved. Looking at answer choice C, which states, the cause of landlord paying the electricity bill is the same effect, having energy conserved. So the fact we have Two causes that cause the same effect, then answer choice C weakens the authors argument. When first looking at this problem, I was not comfortable with any answer, and cross off A, B, D, E and C just left me thinking, HUH? But after seeing the cause relationship, I was able to choose C.

[James Finch]

Hi Eric,

That's excellent work, and exactly how one should look at causal reasoning stimuli, which are the majority of Weaken/Strengthen questions. Alternate causes are the easiest way to attack the argument (or bolster it by eliminating them), so always keep those in mind when identifying causal reasoning.

Good job!

[manchas]

That's not quite what answer E is saying, HELPME, so let me see if I can helpyou. Answer E is saying that some people (how many? At least one, maybe all, could be anywhere in between) conserve energy for other reasons than cost. Maybe some conserve because they care about the planet. Maybe some do it because that's just what they were taught to do. Maybe some do it because they are afraid if they don't, they will get in trouble or the energy will run out or because they want to avoid attracting the attention of the government or the alien overlords. So some folks have other reasons. Does that do anything to harm the claim that making the tenants responsible will lead to more conservation? Nope, because while it could be that some people have other reasons, some other people might care about the money. "Some don't care about the money" is completely compatible with with "some people DO care about the money" - they can both be true at the same time! As long as some people care about cost savings, it could be that putting the financial burden on them will give them an incentive to conserve more, leading to a net increase in conservation. For the folks that do not care about the money, they will keep doing what they always did.

One other thing to consider, and that is that some people might conserve for non-financial reasons, like caring about the environment, but even those folks might try to conserve even more when it starts to hit them in the wallet! Having a non-financial reason for doing what you do doesn't preclude having an additional, financial reason for doing it even more!

That's why E doesn't weaken this argument, HELPME. Those "some" people aren't necessarily the only people, and even they might end up with more than one motive for conserving.

Adam - I had the exact same reaction to (E) that the previous 1800 HELP ME poster had in picking E. Your explanation helped clear it up but I had one follow up. IF (E) was more precise and stronger and had said "Most people conserve for reasons unrelated to cost" would that have made it a stronger contender to weaken???

[Adam Tyson]

Stronger, yes, but I'm still not sure it would do much damage, manchas. Even those "most" people could perhaps be moved to start conserving even more once they have a financial incentive. And there's still the impact of some people to consider - if even one tenant conserves more energy as a result, the argument is valid. Answer C would still be far better because it involves not just questioning whether money is a good enough motive for everyone, but because it explicitly removes a motive for landlords to help conserve.

[lsatstudent99966]

Hi there,

I have one issue with this question.

I think the way the stimulus of this question is phrased is a little odd.

The conclusion in this stimulus is that "energy will be conserved as a result".
Isn't that a little imprecise? Does it mean "LESS energy will be wasted"? Or does it simply mean "some energy will be saved"? (If the conclusion in the stimulus said "MORE energy will be saved as a result", it would be much clearer.)

I understand that (C) asks us to compare the amount of energy wasted in a situation where the landlord pays the bills versus a situation where the tenant pays the bills. We will have to consider that without energy-efficient appliances, the tenants may not save MORE energy, regardless of their efforts.

But technically speaking, as long as we know that the tenants are doing something to reduce their utility bill, the tenants are still saving energy. Doesn't that mean "energy is saved as a result"?

Simply put, my problem with this question is that the conclusion in the stimulus isn't comparative. But (C) lets us make comparisons.

I did pick (C) eventually though...

[Adam Tyson]

I read the stimulus as comparative, 99966. It's comparing what is currently happening to what would happen is the proposed change was made. "Energy would be conserved" means less energy would be used under the new arrangement than under the old one. I don't think it makes sense to read it as tenants would try to conserve energy but that there would be no net gain.

[lsatstudent99966]

I read the stimulus as comparative, 99966. It's comparing what is currently happening to what would happen is the proposed change was made. "Energy would be conserved" means less energy would be used under the new arrangement than under the old one. I don't think it makes sense to read it as tenants would try to conserve energy but that there would be no net gain.

Thank you Adam. I think we know that this is the only way to read it based on how the first and second sentences are connected, right?

[Adam Tyson]

That's my take, 99966! It just doesn't make sense to me to read it any other way. "Energy would be conserved" means "more energy would be conserved than is currently being conserved."

[lsatstudent99966]

That's my take, 99966! It just doesn't make sense to me to read it any other way. "Energy would be conserved" means "more energy would be conserved than is currently being conserved."

That makes sense! Thank you very much Adam!