#17 - Using fossil energy more efficiently is in the

[Clay Cooper]

Hi justpeachy,

Yes, you are understanding the question, argument, and answer choice E correctly.

The last paragraph of your post, especially, summarizes well and succinctly why E is correct - the objection raised in the stimulus is just a stock, unoriginal assertion that free markets ("operation of the market") are most efficient when unregulated and not subject to external influence; however, answer choice E effectively points out that situations inevitably arise where the free market does, in fact, produce inefficiencies.

Do you feel more comfortable with this question now?

[justpeachy]

Yes, I do I understand the question 100% better now. Thanks so much!

[lunalondon]

Hello PowerScore,

I've read the comments here and I do understand why answer choice E is correct, however, I am having trouble seeing why answer choice D is incorrect.

When I read "energy prices rise" I automatically thought that this was a cause of the normal operation of the market (energy prices rise and fall all the time in the market). So, if prices increase and consumers of energy are looking for ways to increase energy efficiency, such as adding insulation, wouldn't that require even more energy? Ie, energy prices are so high that consumers are looking for ways to be more energy-efficient, which in turn requires more energy (especially if you're looking for insulation...). Does that make sense or am I getting really mixed up?

Thank you!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi lunalondon,

I'm not totally sure I understand where you're going with this, but I'm going to do my best to answer. D is basically saying that, when energy prices go up, people try to figure out how to use less energy, which means they may look for home improvements to make their homes more energy efficient such as by adding insulation. D strengthens the objection, rather than weakening it, because D shows the objection is true: the market will naturally lead people to make energy efficient choices, according to D. Installing insulation wouldn't end up using more energy, it would use less; by insulating the house, that keeps heat in (or air conditioning in) better, so you need to use less energy to heat the home. Does that make sense?

[elewis10]

I think i got it... but just so I'm clear. E is correct because it pretty clearly contradicts the objection saying that the landlord (which is sort of the "opposite" of the market) should make decisions rather than the tenants... aka the market. Does that sound right? Thanks!!!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi elewis10,

I think you're on the right track. "Operation of the market" probably means both the landlord and the tenants, but E is pointing out that the outcome won't be great if we leave decisions about energy efficiency up to those players. For a more in-depth explanation, check out Robert Carroll's excellent post, above.

Hope that helps!

[tug59567]

Hi,

I am confused as to why we can assume that the objection is in response to the environmental issues raised above. The objector simply states that decisions surrounding energy use should be left up to the market - It doesn't argue that this will result in the efficient use of energy. In fact, what if the objection was regarding the economic benefit of allowing the market to make decisions and not the environmental benefit?

Hopefully, that makes sense. Either way, thanks and stay safe!

-Jason

[KelseyWoods]

Hi tug59567!

To determine what the objection is regarding, we need to make sure we have a clear understanding of the argument that the "Objection" is objecting to. The argument is not just that we should implement government standards, rather the argument is that major improvements in the efficient use of fossil energy are unlikely unless government standards are implemented. If you are objecting to that argument, then, you are basically saying that you do not think that government standards are necessary for the efficient use of fossil fuels. Hence, the "Objection" is objecting to not just government standards from a purely economic perspective, but to government standards as the only way of achieving efficient fossil energy use.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[rita02]

Hello,

I am having a hard time understanding why A is incorrect. I can see why E is the correct answer choice but am having a hard time eliminating A. Can someone please explain the reasoning? Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Rita,

Answer choice A raises a time issue ("all at once") that is not part of the argument in the stimulus. The initial argument is that "major improvements are unlikely unless" the government steps in, which doesn't imply or suggest when those improvements will occur ("all at once"? or gradually?). The objection sticks to whether or not government standards are necessary, stating that they are not necessary by raising an alternative (the operation of the market). But, the objection also takes no position on when those improvements should or must occur (all at once, or gradually?). So, when answer choice A says we can't get efficiency "all at once," the objection speaker would likely say, "that's fine, but we still shouldn't rely on government to do it (the market will have to get us there, even if it's gradually)!"

There's another problem with answer choice A, and that is that the initial speaker (and the objector) are only discussing the subject of using fossil energy "more efficiently" (better than we do now) without discussing what would or might lead to "maximum energy efficiency" (as answer choice A does). That's another good reason to reject answer choice A.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy