#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.