Self-study
Using fossil energy more efficiently is in the interest of the nation and the global environment, but major improvements are unlikely unless proposed government standards are implemented to eliminate products or practices that are among the least efficient in their class.
██████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████
Summarize Argument
We don’t actually get an argument here, just some claims and an objection, which we need to weaken. The objection says that energy use should be decided by the market, not government regulation. Why? No clue—there’s no support provided for this claim, which is why it isn’t an argument.
It may be tempting to see the claim that efficient use of fossil energy is a key priority as support, but just because the objection doesn’t explicitly reject that claim, doesn’t mean it agrees or takes it as support.
Notable Assumptions
The objection is based on an assumption that there’s some reason that the market is better-placed to make decisions on energy use compared to the government. This is an assumption because the objection is presented without support.
17.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██████
a
It would be ███████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ██ █████
This does not undermine the objection, because it doesn’t help us determine whether the market or the government is a better decision-maker on energy—it applies equally to both. Whether immediate maximum efficiency is possible is really irrelevant.
b
There are products, ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████
Like (D), this does not undermine the objection. In fact, at least for products like cars, it strengthens the objection by explaining how market incentives (i.e. the cost of fuel) could improve energy efficiency, thus giving us a reason to support the market.
c
Whenever a new ████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ████ ██ █ ███ █████ ██ ███████████ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████ ██ █ █████████████████ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████
This does not undermine the objection. Based on the stimulus, we have no reason to believe that new types of energy are in question at all. Even if they were, this still doesn’t help us decide if the market or the government will make better decisions. So, this is irrelevant.
d
When energy prices █████ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███████████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███████
This does not undermine the objection. Instead, like (B), it strengthens the claim that the market approach has benefits, namely leading to greater energy efficiency. This is an even better strengthen answer than (B), because it’s not limited to only certain products.
e
Often the purchaser ██ █ ████████ ████ ██ █ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ████████
This undermines the objection by showing that market decisions often have nothing to do with energy efficiency. If there’s no relationship between energy efficiency and market incentives, there’s no reason to think the market would make good decisions on energy, thus weakening.