PT29.S4.Q9 - "Because of increases in the price of oil..."

Sarah889Sarah889 Alum Member
edited March 2017 in Logical Reasoning 877 karma

Struggling with this. I'm stuck between how D is correct over C. See below for a break up of the stimulus.

1970-now --> Oil use decreased by 40%

Why? 2 reasons:
1. Increases in the price of oil
2. Government policies promoting energy conservation

Because of this, many people switched to natural gas for heating, which required investing in equipment.

Because of this investment, it is unlikely that a significant switch back to oil in the near future will occur.

So the argument is relying on this idea that an investment in natural gas equipment is enough to deter a large switch back to oil. If we were to take away that "investment" element, we would weaken the prediction, no?

C- I confidently chose C during BR because C takes away (or at least severely weakens) the "investment" aspect and allows for natural gas equipment to be cheaper. (Keeping in mind that the cheapness of the equipment is not why people will continue to use it. The investment made in the equipment is why. If we were to make it so that investment no longer was required, then this supporting premise would no longer be sound). Furthermore, it also takes away reason 1 presented above for why people shifted to natural gas in the first place. With the truth of C, we are only left with one supporting premise about "government policies promoting energy conservation" to support the conclusion.

D- Just to recap: the "investment" aspect of natural gas is WHY people are committing to long term usage of it. D says that oil equipment is cheaper, so that "investment" aspect is not present for oil. Therefore, if anything, all the first part of D suggests is that there are no widespread commitments to oil, at least in the same respect as there is for natural gas. Furthermore, with the second part of D, we know that the price of heating with oil is NOW cheaper than the price of heating with natural gas. Admittedly, this does challenged reason 1 for switching from oil to natural gas. However, we don't know that the investment put into the equipment for natural gas does not exceed the current savings of switching to the now-cheaper oil over gas.
For example, if we spent $10,000 on natural gas equipment, and natural gas cost $15 per month (making this up) and, according to D, the cost of oil is now $13 per month, it will take a very long time for the switch to be worth it.

Another point on D, we have no idea how expensive the oil equipment was BEFORE this sharp decrease. The stimulus gives us no information regarding whether the investment in oil equipment was more or less than the investment in natural gas equipment. All we know is 1) oil was expensive, 2) the government wanted us to decrease our usage and 3) the investment in natural gas equipment was significant. It could very well be that the oil equipment was EVEN MORE expensive than the natural gas equipment, but that, the increase in oil price was enough to warrant a switch. So that brings me to my second issue with D...D says the cost of equipment for oil has fallen sharply...okay? Are we supposed to assume that it is now cheaper than natural gas equipment? Are we supposed to assume that this fall in equipment price is substantial enough to convince people to revert back to oil?

Thanks in advance.

Comments

  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    edited March 2017 7468 karma

    Tough distinction to make here. What are the different bases of comparison between (C) and (D)?

    For (C), what if the price of natural oil rose? (Answer (C) leaves that possibility.) Then, the likelihood of a significant switch to oil is still uncertain, at best. (D) addresses that issue by comparing the two prices of heating gas vs. oil.

    I think that's enough for you, but feel free to follow up.

  • Sarah889Sarah889 Alum Member
    edited March 2017 877 karma

    @DumbHollywoodActor said:
    Tough distinction to make here. What are the different bases of comparison between (C) and (D)?

    For (C), what if the price of natural oil rose? (Answer (C) leaves that possibility.) Then, the likelihood of a significant switch to oil is still uncertain, at best. (D) addresses that issue by comparing the two prices of heating gas vs. oil.

    I think that's enough for you, but feel free to follow up.

    Thank you for your response!

    C does leave open the possibility that the price for natural gas increases. But C also leave open a lot of damning possibilities...like who is to say we don't run out of natural gas or if our government decides to place restrictions on its usage? (These possibilities also apply to D as well...)

    What makes the lingering possibilities in D more acceptable than C? D leaves us making a lot of assumptions (as I noted above: Who is to say that a decrease in the cost of oil equipment isn't still more expensive or less desirable in some way than natural gas equipment?) Arguably more assumptions than C does.

    (^^^ In my current opinion. I'm aware I'm wrong because the LSAT is always right. Haha...just trying to pinpoint where I'm wrong.)

  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    edited March 2017 7468 karma

    You're right about there being a LOT of assumptions. But most of the assumptions that D makes, C ALSO makes. But D makes the comparison of current prices. That's one less assumption than C makes. The clue that you need to use this form of analysis is that the first clause is identical between C and D. This won't go away in future tests, so this is a great question to keep around for a while to remind you that you may need to make comparisons between two similar answers and to pick the least assumptive answer.

Sign In or Register to comment.