Comments

• 1 Like

  NerfThis Alum Member

  July 2020 edited July 2020 173 karma

  I think your reasoning that

  "My problem with C was that, in order for C to weaken the stimulus, we'd need to assume that the landlords would take out the energy-conserving equipment once they install the energy meters."

  would be correct IF the stimulus was referring to a SPECIFIC case and not speaking in generality.

  What if the overall amount of electricity conserved by the tenants (after switching to the new system) is less than the overall use of the now-not-as-energy-efficient-appliances?

  Remember, we don't have to 100% wreck the argument in this case. Just cause the most doubt in the reasoning of the argument.

  "If some people conserved energy for non-financial reasons before landlords installed the energy meters, then this would make it more likely that these people would not care about the new energy meters because they never saved energy for financial reasons in the first place."

  Answer choice [E] brings up a new idea that wasn't mentioned in the stimulus, which is cost savings (granted financial incentives is mentioned).

  Even if there are some people who do not care about their electric bill all, does this weaken the argument?: because some tenants do not have to pay for their electricity, they have no incentive to reduce electricity use. Therefore, if the landlords of those tenants switched over to a system where the tenants do pay according to their use, then overall electricity use will be reduced.

  Without introducing some other factor that does indeed help (like answer choice C, unlike E), the argument still stands. Based on the premises, the overall electricity use will most likely be reduced. It doesn't matter if a few of the tenants don't care about the cost of their electric bill at all.
• Darklord Alum Member

  July 2020 586 karma

  thanks for your comment @NerfThis ! I can kinda see how C could weaken the argument (because we do not assume that the meter equipment stays on), but I still feel lost about why E doesn't weaken the argument. Aren't there a lot of correct weaken answer choices that bring up something not brought up in the stimulus (ie answers that reveal a gap in the logic)? For instance, the first time I read this question, the first thing I thought was: how do we know that the tenants who had no financial incentive to save energy did not have some sort of other incentive to save energy? E pretty much preys on this gap in logic.
• 1 Like

  NerfThis Alum Member

  July 2020 edited July 2020 173 karma

  The argument in the stimulus is trying to conclude overall electricity use will reduce. Whether if the incentive for the reduction was monetary, environmental, or whatever is irrelevant.

  Try granting answer choice [E] as if it was correct. Say those "some people" reduced their electricity use because they're tree huggers and given that they're rich tree huggers, the cost of their electric bill is little to no concern to them.

  Does this weaken the argument that overall electric use will be reduce? No it doesn't. The reason WHY one reduced his/her electricity use isn't the issue here.

  If answer choice [E] said, some people literally do not give a damn for any amount regarding their electric bill, I think your reasoning would be correct.

  But thats not what it say. It says some people CONSERVE for other reasons than monetary. Conserve electric use -> reduced electric use. [E] doesn't weaken the argument as it is perfectly consistent with it.

  "how do we know that the tenants who had no financial incentive to save energy did not have some sort of other incentive to save energy?"

  We don't. Ok grant that they had other incentives to save energy. So what? In the end they saved energy just on different reasons.
• 1 Like

  Darklord Alum Member

  July 2020 586 karma

  I am starting to get it now-- thanks @NerfThis ! I really appreciate your explanation