#17 - Using fossil energy more efficiently is in the

[crispycrispr]

Hi! I have a question about answer choice (B). I'm not sure how it's irrelevant to the argument. If there are certain products that are more obviously energy inefficient to the consumers, doesn't this bias the free market's decision and hence undermine the objection?
is it that even if certain products enable biases, both government and market can be the purchasers and make the same biases, so this choice doesn’t make it more or less advisable to leave fossil fuel decisions to the market vs. the government.

[Adam Tyson]

If it biases consumers' decisions at all, crispycrispr, it would likely do so in a way that actually strengthens the argument rather than weakening it. The objection is that we should leave decisions about energy usage to the market, so if consumers are aware of energy inefficiencies in their products, such as cars, and that causes them to make better choices, like getting their car repaired or purchasing one that is more energy efficient, that would show the market doing the job instead of government having to step in and eliminate those products.

But it's really irrelevant because the answer doesn't tell us anything about whether the market will do a better job than government elimination of products. Remember, the objection is that we should leave these decisions to the operation of the market. In other words, let buyers and sellers figure things out between them. The objection is based on the idea that consumers will make efficient energy choices and producers will be forced to respond by providing products that are more energy efficient, so the government can and should stay out of it. That's the claim we need to undermine, and B doesn't do so because it tells us nothing about what either consumers or producers would do with that information.

[crispycrispr]

If it biases consumers' decisions at all, crispycrispr, it would likely do so in a way that actually strengthens the argument rather than weakening it. The objection is that we should leave decisions about energy usage to the market, so if consumers are aware of energy inefficiencies in their products, such as cars, and that causes them to make better choices, like getting their car repaired or purchasing one that is more energy efficient, that would show the market doing the job instead of government having to step in and eliminate those products.

But it's really irrelevant because the answer doesn't tell us anything about whether the market will do a better job than government elimination of products. Remember, the objection is that we should leave these decisions to the operation of the market. In other words, let buyers and sellers figure things out between them. The objection is based on the idea that consumers will make efficient energy choices and producers will be forced to respond by providing products that are more energy efficient, so the government can and should stay out of it. That's the claim we need to undermine, and B doesn't do so because it tells us nothing about what either consumers or producers would do with that information.

Ah, I see, thanks! I definitely didn't focus on the conclusion enough when I did this question.

[Henry Z]

I can't help but feel (E) is irrelevent. It took too many assumptions to be a weakener.

For one, how do we know the relationship between a product's purchase price and its energy efficiency? What if there's no strong correlation, so there're as many cheap-and-efficient products as there are cheap-and-inefficient ones? Furthermore, even if the landlod's cheap products are inefficient, that is, using more energy, wouldn't the tenants use them less often to save the bill, hence reducing the inefficient practices? Lastly--tho I might be overthinking this--the original stimulus talks about "MAJOR improvements", while (E) suggests a very limited scope of residential (or at least non-industrial) energy use, which is much less than industrial energy use. I just thought the energy saved by some more efficient fridges and kettles would be too small to make a difference and thus weaken the objection.

[Adam Tyson]

This answer and its relationship to the argument is simpler than it may appear at first, Henry.

The author thinks the market - buyers and sellers - will make good energy decisions. Forget about regulation, and let the buyers and sellers handle things, because they will do it best.

Answer E suggests that the market might NOT be making decisions based on good energy policy, because buyers often focus only on price, because energy efficiency has no impact on them.

That's all it takes to raise at least some doubt about the conclusion! And that's all a good Weaken answer needs to do: raise at least some doubt. None of the other answers has any impact at all on the claim that the market will do a better job than government regulations, while this answer has at least some impact. That makes it the one answer that "most" undermines the objection, even if it doesn't do all that much!