Kerosene Heater.. Experts Please Explain.

The conclusion is that there will be negative effect on disposable income. Because kerosene is banned, consumers must turn to oil and natural gas, which are both more expensive than kerosene.

1. This does not matter; both of the available alternatives are more expensive than kerosene.
2. Irrelevant. Even partial implementation will cause consumers to pay more.
3. Fatal accidents are not relevant to price and effect on disposable income.
4. The portion of income they absorb is irrelevant; an increase in cost will consume more of the income.
5. If they will continue to use heating fuels, and the two options are both more expensive, then there must be paying more, thus leading to a negative effect on disposable income.

tanvis1120 wrote:In response to studies showing that accidents involving kerosene heaters were responsible for a significant number of fatalities, government regulators in Country X have banned the sale of kerosene. This will have a negative effect on disposable income for the citizens of Country X, since oil and natural gas, the two available alternative heating fuels, are more expensive than kerosene.

Kerosene responsible for significant number of fatalities - Banned in Country X.

Result : Negative effect on disposable income coz the alternative heating fuels are more expensive.



The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

1. Most citizens of country X base their decision on heating fuel strictly on price

Might be true.

2. It will prove impossible to fully implement the ban of kerosene, since a flourishing black market exists for the sale of banned goods in Country X.

Out of scope.

3. Oil and natural gas will be responsible for fewer fatal accidents than kerosene was before kerosene was banned.

Might be true , but we can't assume it , coz it depends how people will be using it.

4. Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.

Might be true, say if its a colder country cost of fuel will be higher.

5. The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels.

Definitely true , the author mentions alternate sources of Heating fuel , to suggest that there will be need for searching alternative to Kerosene which will be cheaper.

Thus heating fuels will continue to be used , the government doesn't ban heating fuels , it simply bans use of Kerosene as a heating fuel..

IMO(E) as well..

What is the source of this problem?

I feel '4' and '5' may equally correct

Here is my explanation

4 --> Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.

Negate 4 --> Heating costs do not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X

This weakens the conclusion since If "Heating costs do not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income" then switching over to oil and natural gas may not or may have little impact on the disposable income of the citizens.

5 --> The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels

Negate 5 --> The citizens of Country X will not continue to use heating fuels

This also weakens the conculsion since If "The citizens of Country X will not continue to use heating fuels " switching over to oil and natural gas may not or may have little impact on the disposable income of the citizens.


"I'd like to solve this with an analogy in an "Indian" context

In response to studies showing that accidents involving Cars that use Diesel were responsible for a significant number of fatalities, government regulators in Country X have banned the sale of Diesel. This will have a negative effect on disposable income for the citizens of Country X, since Petrol, the alternative fuel for cars, is more expensive than Diesel.

4 --> Commutation costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X [Needs to be true]

5 --> The citizens of Country X will continue to use fuel for commutation [Needs to be true]

[/u][/list]