CR : wind and solar power

[happyface101]

Hi, I'm still not sure why D is wrong ... The statement here is around "The utility companies claim that although these sources require significant initial capital investment, they will provide stable energy supplies at low cost". The assumption the conclusion / statement relies on is that the cost of converting to wind and solar is not more than the cost of creating energy through combustion. If it is more expense, then the conclusion is invalid, no? Please help.

Be careful on what your goal is here:

"The claim of the utility companies presupposes which of the following?"

This is a tricky way of saying, "what is the assumption here?" We aren't trying to strengthen or weaken the argument. We are trying to find what the conclusion relies on. For that reason, our conclusion has little to do with what the cost of these two technologies are today. The argument even leaves open the option that the cost of wind and solar energy will one day be reduced. Rather, the conclusion "wind and solar energy will provide stable energy supplies" depends on the assumption that wind and solar energy is stable.

[happyface101]

Can someone please help with this question? Thank you!!

[RonPurewal]

that answer choice talks about the cost of "technology for conversion to wind and solar power"—in other words, the technology that's necessary to switch from the current (non-renewable) sources to those new ones.

the speaker has already acknowledged the high cost of making the conversion ("high initial capital investment"), so the statement in this answer choice isn't necessary.

[RonPurewal]

you are right, by the way, in the sense that the speaker's argument depends on the idea that energy production will be cheaper with the new sources than with the old ones. but, that's not what the answer choice is talking about.

[Daisyc463]

I chose B because the conclusion says the conventional fuel price will fluctuate according to availability. If there is new deposits of gas, oils and coal discovery in the near future, then the availability will not become a problem. So the utility company assumed in the argument that no new conventional fuel will be discovered. Could someone help me explain why this is wrong? Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

choice B is WAY too strong -- it actually says that NO new sources of those resources will ever be found. literally, ZERO of them.

remember that an "assumption" is something that's NECESSARY to the argument -- it can't be any stronger than necessary. this statement is clearly much, much too strong.

(put another way -- if choice B is a necessary assumption, then that means the discovery of even ONE new source of coal/oil/gas would completely eliminate any problems with the availability of those resources. that's definitely not true.)