BTGmoderatorRO wrote:Taking a step towards going green, last year the state of Wississipi planned on giving interest free loans and free installations for households installing solar power generators. Many houses in Wississipi took advantage of this and a report claimed that up to 10% of households in the state were benefiting from the scheme. But at the end of the year the state saw an increase in the demand for electricity.
Which of the following, if true, does most to explain the result that followed the implementation of the scheme?

A- During an internal audit it was proved that the claims of the report was not entirely true and had been slightly modified.
B- Last year, the sunlight hours were comparatively fewer than the year before.
C- Most people were not committed towards going green and thus did not take advantage of the scheme.
D- Many people who benefited from the scheme wasted most of the energy they got from solar generators in unwanted uses they might have avoided if solar energy had not been available in the first place.
E- Many new manufacturing plants that use lot of electricity started their operations in Wississipi towards the end of last year.

OA is e
what is wrong with option C and D? Any explanation

I am happy to help. This is an Explain/Resolve the Paradox question type. In these questions, the GMAT would present us with two seemingly contradictory statements (note the emphasis on 'seemingly'), and we have to find some external information that reconciles these statements. In this question, our 2 statements are:

Statement 1: 10% of the households in Wississipi were benefiting from free solar power last year
Statement 2: The state of Wississipi saw an increased demand for electricity towards end of last year

Now, let us think of a possible way as to how both these phenomena can co-exist. Again, the fundamental approach to any CR question is to notice the discrepancy in terms of the scope/domain changes and transitions between the different statements using a simple brute force word-match. In this question, as we can see, the scope of Statement 1 is "Wississipi households", whereas that of Statement 2 is "the state of Wississipi".

Obviously, the two scopes are not the same, and therein lies our discrepancy. The correct answer would attack this discrepancy and bring up the possibility that sources in the state other than the Wississipi households were responsible for the increased demand in electricity towards the end of last year. This is precisely what Option E does in mentioning that there were several new manufacturing plants (within the state of Wississipi) that started their operations towards the end of last year, and presumably didn't get any free solar power (since the solar power scheme was only restricted to Wississipi households).

Let us go through C and D.

C- Most people were not committed towards going green and thus did not take advantage of the scheme: We already know this - only 10% of the households signed up for the scheme. Still, the demand for electricity should decrease, even if by 10%. Eliminate

D- Many people who benefited from the scheme wasted most of the energy they got from solar generators in unwanted uses they might have avoided if solar energy had not been available in the first place: We are not concerned with what they did with the energy once they received it - the point is that they did receive the energy, so the overall demand for electricity should decrease. Eliminate

Please let me know in case anything doesn't make sense.