City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 percent a year, and there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases. We must therefore begin to curtail usage, which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.
The city council member's proposal assumes which of the following?
Always stick to the conclusion and the premises that lead to it.
What we have to find is the assumption of the argument. An assumption is nothing but an unstated premise that lends support to the conclusion.
The premises here are-
- demand has been increasing
- there is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.
Conclusion/proposal-
We must therefore begin to curtail usage, which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.
(A) Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Option A is an unstated premise that supports the conclusion
- demand has been increasing
- there is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases.
- Existing power plants do not have capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
Therefore- We must therefore begin to curtail usage, which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.
Let’s negate option A-
If the existing power plants had the capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity, we wouldn’t have to curtail usage or pass ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments. Negation of option A breaks the argument.
Option A is correct.
(B) No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
Even if some city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily, our conclusion is still valid. Negation of option D doesn’t lead to the negation of the conclusion. Eliminate.
(C) Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
Economic consequences- Out of scope.
(D) Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
D says residential consumers are not responsible. It doesn’t matter who is responsible. We know that the demand is increasing and that we don’t have space to build more power plants
No matter who is using electricity - We must curtail usage
(E) City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.
Does not impact the argument. Out of scope- Eliminate.
Please let me know if you have further doubts.