The following passage was written in the mid-1990s.
The demand for electricity in certain countries has been projected recently to grow by 50 percent by the year 2010. Unfortunately, the increased use of fossil fuels to generate this electricity may ultimately damage human and environmental health.
In rural Brazil, for example, millions of citizens do not have electricity, and the lack of necessary infrastructure has limited efforts to provide it. In 1992, an energy agency from the United States developed a joint project with two Brazilian states to install 800 household solar electrical systems and train local personnel to service them. …
But some efforts have avoided these pitfalls. In the mid-1980s, a Danish energy agency helped agencies in India build three modern wind turbine plants and gradually develop local technical capacity. Local participants were trained in planning, operation, maintenance, and construction of turbines. Indian firms subsequently began manufacturing turbines and, as more locally manufactured equipment became available, Indian utilities were able to increase their use of wind energy profitably. …
Which one of the following, if true, would most call into question the author's assertion in
The profitability of the India project was due primarily to temporary subsidies from the Indian government.
This weakens the author’s claim, because the claim is based on the assumption that local involvement is what allowed the project to be profitable. Remember the author’s point from P2. The Brazil project didn’t become profitable because it didn’t use local companies. The author thinks the India project is a good contrast for her point because it did use local companies and was profitable. The author assumes that the use of local companies caused the project’s profitability. (A) points out another explanation for the project’s profitability. If the project was profitable due to subsidies, then we have no reason to think local participation is as important as the author thinks it is to the long-term success of a project. If those temporary subsidies go away, then the project might fail.
The Danish energy agency invested more funds in the India project than the U.S. agency invested in the Brazil project.
This doesn’t undermine the author’s point, because she acknowledges that using local companies, as the Danish agency did,
Indian firms are not required to limit user fees charged to consumers.
This suggests that Indian companies can charge consumers higher fees. But do we have any reason to think higher fees are the cause of the Indian wind project’s profitability? Also, we can read (C) as potentially helping the author’s claim by suggesting that the project is more likely to succeed because Indian authorities can charge more for the energy produced by the wind project.
Environmental pollutants are produced in the manufacture of some equipment used in wind turbines.
We’re trying to weaken the claim that the project has a good chance of succeeding in the long run. We’re not trying to weaken the claim that the project has absolutely no harmful effects on the environment. The fact that some pollutants are released by the wind turbines doesn’t give us a reason to think the project has less chance of being a long-term success.
New technology is poised to decrease sharply the level of pollutants produced by fossil-fuel plants.
The claim we’re trying to weaken is about the long-term profitability of the project. It doesn’t have to do with the environmental impact of the project. Also, (E) is about fossil-fuel plants, which have nothing to do with the Indian wind project. If you think (E) suggests fossil-fuel plants might be able to outcompete the wind project as a source of energy, that’s unwarranted speculation.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic