Critical Reasoning

In Western economies, more energy is used to operate
buildings than to operate transportation. Much of the
decline in energy consumption since the oil crisis of
1973 is due to more efficient use of energy in homes
and offices. New building technologies, which make
lighting, heating, and ventilation systems more
efficient, have cut billions of dollars from energy
bills in the West. Since energy savings from these
efficiencies save several billion dollars per year
today, we can conclude that 50 to 100 years from
now they will save more than $200 billion per year
(calculated in current dollars).
On which one of the following assumptions does the
argument rely?
(A) Technology used to make buildings energy
efficient will not become prohibitively
expensive over the next century.
(B) Another oil crisis will occur in the next 50 to
100 years.
(C) Buildings will gradually become a less
important consumer of energy than
transportation.
(D) Energy bills in the West will be $200 billion
lower in the next 50 to 100 years.
(E) Energy-efficient technologies based on new
scientific principles will be introduced in the
next 50 to 100 years.

What should be the answer to this one?

IMO A I have neither OA nor source

The answer to this one should be (E).

reply2spg - hey dude!!!! the answer A does not really work here. the question is basically asking which of the following is an assumption hidden behind the conclusion. The conclusion is that "Since energy savings from these efficiencies save several billion dollars per year today, we can conclude that 50 to 100 years from now they will save more than $200 billion per year
(calculated in current dollars)."

Now the conclusion is based on the premise that "Much of the decline in energy consumption since the oil crisis of
1973 is due to more efficient use of energy in homes and offices. New building technologies, which make
lighting, heating, and ventilation systems more efficient, have cut billions of dollars from energy bills in the West. "

(A) suggests that this technology will not become expensive. But the money saved is NOT from the cheap or expensiveness of the technology but from the technologies efficiency in saving energy.

(E) is saying that new efficiency technologies will be introduced in 50 to 100 years hence lead to more savings. If the technology today lead to savings of $200 B a year then offcorse NEW technologies will be even more efficient.

I hope this helps!

I agree, thanks buddy.

A is irrelevent. If cost of technology is more or less it is not impacting conclusion. i.e. A is not impacting conclusion
But if Energy-efficient technologies will not implemented then conclusion will not hold true. I.e. E is correct

Gurpinder wrote:The answer to this one should be (E).

reply2spg - hey dude!!!! the answer A does not really work here. the question is basically asking which of the following is an assumption hidden behind the conclusion. The conclusion is that "Since energy savings from these efficiencies save several billion dollars per year today, we can conclude that 50 to 100 years from now they will save more than $200 billion per year
(calculated in current dollars)."

Now the conclusion is based on the premise that "Much of the decline in energy consumption since the oil crisis of
1973 is due to more efficient use of energy in homes and offices. New building technologies, which make
lighting, heating, and ventilation systems more efficient, have cut billions of dollars from energy bills in the West. "

(A) suggests that this technology will not become expensive. But the money saved is NOT from the cheap or expensiveness of the technology but from the technologies efficiency in saving energy.

(E) is saying that new efficiency technologies will be introduced in 50 to 100 years hence lead to more savings. If the technology today lead to savings of $200 B a year then offcorse NEW technologies will be even more efficient.

I hope this helps!

I feel that the answer is A. I think that Option E actually strengthens the argument.
"energy savings from these efficiencies save several billion dollars per year" shows that there will be a significant dollar savings over 50-100 years if nothing affects the saving.

Even if option E is not true, the conclusion is no way affected.

Please let me know your thoughts

I agree it's A. Here's why.

The argument says new building technologies will continue saving money at the same rate per year in the years to come. This is however dependent on whether new technologies will continue to stay as COST efficient as they are today. We know that if cost of technology increases in the years to come, it will make them COST inefficient and hence not save money at the same rate. A refers to this assumption.

i agree with A for the reasons the last two posters put. that's how i selected the answer.

i left A and E as contenders and negated both. to me, only answer A weakens the conclusion when negated. Answer E stays neutral so it can't be correct.

Sudhanshu and Gurpinder,

I still feel answer is A.

Can you recheck. If not, we can request some expert help.

kvcpk wrote:Sudhanshu and Gurpinder,

I still feel answer is A.

Can you recheck. If not, we can request some expert help.

i *think* this question is in the assumption section of the CR Bible. i'll look when i get home if no one has found it by then.

I also felt that A is correct, but then I changed my answer to E. Don't know what the OA is. 'Hero' please check once you get time

My pick is E
Dont think A is a contender here because Technology costs is not in consideration currently.. After 50 years , also it will not be part of the equation Note that the conclusion is based on assumption that continued new technology improvements every year will help reach the new levels of savings...

Say last year , energy expense is $100.
This year technology improvements reduce costs by $10. But then now the energy expense is $90. Savings=$10
Next year to save atleast $10 on $90, one would need to introduce newer technologies so that savings of $10 can be realised . And the base expense becomes $80 . Note that maintain existing technology will not help realise the $10 savings because that's now your benchmark set of technologies
Then the year next..to save even $10, one would need to again introduce more newer technology..

What is the OA?

Found it! Oa is a!
E is wrong because it talks about new technologies being introduced in the future. The author makes no assumptions about this. The argument is about current technologies saving money in the future.

A is correct because if the money and energy saving technology becomes too expensive the savings will not materialize. This idea would weaken the argument so the author assumes it won't happen.

hero wrote:Found it! Oa is a!
E is wrong because it talks about new technologies being introduced in the future. The author makes no assumptions about this. The argument is about current technologies saving money in the future.

A is correct because if the money and energy saving technology becomes too expensive the savings will not materialize. This idea would weaken the argument so the author assumes it won't happen.

@hero - do you know the source of this question ?

CR Bible. PG. 178.

What I cannot understand is that as Power score CR bible explains if new technologies are not to be introduced, how would we save more on consuming the energy more efficiently. for instance, say we are currently saving $10 in each $100 because of the new technologies which are introduced this year. next year, if no NEW technologies are introduced, we won't save MORE money. We are still saving the same amount of money as last year.

I feel the correct answer must be E or the question would not sound logical.

If you have any idea that would fill this gap in reasoning, please explain.