Country X is set to pass a national law requiring all households to use compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Evaluate

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Country X is set to pass a national law requiring all households to use compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of traditional incandescent bulbs. Compact fluorescent bulbs consume a small fraction of the power that incandescent bulbs use to generate the same amount of light. Home lighting makes up a significant percentage of Country X's electrical power use. Successful enforcement of this new law will produce a substantial decrease in the country's electricity consumption.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating this argument?

Whether Country X could generate its electricity with greater efficiency

Whether there is an alternative to incandescent bulbs that is more efficient than compact fluorescent bulbs

How extensively compact fluorescent bulbs are already used in Country X

The difference in price between compact fluorescent bulbs and incandescent bulbs

Whether requiring greater efficiency for motor vehicles would save more energy than requiring the use of compact fluorescent bulbs for lighting

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Country X is set to pass a national law requiring all households to use compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of traditional incandescent bulbs.	What it says: Country X will make a law forcing everyone to switch from old light bulbs to compact fluorescent ones What it does: Sets up the main policy we're going to analyze What it is: Author's factual premise
Compact fluorescent bulbs consume a small fraction of the power that incandescent bulbs use to generate the same amount of light.	What it says: The new bulbs use way less electricity than old bulbs for the same brightness What it does: Provides key technical support for why the switch might matter for electricity use What it is: Author's factual claim Visualization: Old bulb uses 100 watts → New bulb uses 20 watts (same light output)
Home lighting makes up a significant percentage of Country X's electrical power use.	What it says: Lighting accounts for a big chunk of the country's total electricity consumption What it does: Shows that changes in lighting could have major impact on overall electricity use What it is: Author's factual premise Visualization: Total electricity use = 100 units → Home lighting = 40 units (significant portion)
Successful enforcement of this new law will produce a substantial decrease in the country's electricity consumption.	What it says: If the law works, the country will use much less electricity overall What it does: Draws the main conclusion by combining all the previous facts What it is: Author's conclusion Visualization: Current total electricity: 100 units → After law: 75 units (substantial decrease)

Argument Flow:

The argument moves step by step: it starts with a policy change (the new law), then explains why the new bulbs are better (they use less power), shows that lighting matters for total electricity use (significant percentage), and concludes that the combination of these factors will lead to major electricity savings.

Main Conclusion:

Successfully enforcing the law requiring compact fluorescent bulbs will substantially reduce Country X's total electricity consumption.

Logical Structure:

The argument assumes that: efficient bulbs + significant role of lighting + successful enforcement = major electricity reduction. We connect the technical advantage of the new bulbs to the big picture impact through the fact that lighting represents a significant portion of total electricity use.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Evaluate - We need to find what information would be most useful to determine whether the argument's conclusion is valid. This means looking for assumptions that, when taken to extremes, could either strengthen or weaken the conclusion.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes quantitative claims about power consumption ('small fraction'), scope claims about coverage ('all households'), and impact claims about results ('substantial decrease'). These create potential gaps we need to evaluate.

Strategy

For evaluate questions, we look for assumptions the argument relies on. Then we think about what information would help us test whether these assumptions hold true. We want to find scenarios that could either make the conclusion much stronger or much weaker depending on how the information turns out.

Answer Choices Explained

Whether Country X could generate its electricity with greater efficiency

This focuses on electricity generation efficiency rather than consumption patterns. While interesting for energy policy, knowing whether Country X could generate electricity more efficiently doesn't help us evaluate whether requiring compact fluorescent bulbs will reduce total electricity consumption. The argument is about demand-side changes, not supply-side improvements, so this information isn't directly relevant to testing the conclusion.

Whether there is an alternative to incandescent bulbs that is more efficient than compact fluorescent bulbs

This asks about alternatives that might be even more efficient than compact fluorescent bulbs. However, the argument isn't claiming that compact fluorescent bulbs are the best possible option - it's only claiming that switching to them will substantially reduce electricity consumption. Even if better alternatives exist, that doesn't affect whether the proposed switch will achieve substantial savings, so this information doesn't help evaluate the argument.

How extensively compact fluorescent bulbs are already used in Country X

This directly tests a critical assumption of the argument. If compact fluorescent bulbs are already extensively used in Country X, then the new law wouldn't create much change in actual bulb usage, undermining the conclusion that we'll see substantial electricity reduction. But if very few households currently use these efficient bulbs, then mandatory switching would create a major change supporting the conclusion. This information is essential for evaluating whether the argument holds up.

The difference in price between compact fluorescent bulbs and incandescent bulbs

While price differences might affect compliance and implementation costs, the argument already assumes 'successful enforcement' of the law. Given that assumption, price differences don't directly impact whether successfully enforcing the law will reduce electricity consumption. The technical efficiency gains would occur regardless of price once the law is successfully enforced.

Whether requiring greater efficiency for motor vehicles would save more energy than requiring the use of compact fluorescent bulbs for lighting

This compares the energy-saving potential of different policies (vehicle efficiency vs. lighting efficiency). However, the argument only claims that the lighting law will produce substantial electricity decrease, not that it's the best possible energy policy. Whether other policies might save more energy doesn't affect whether this particular policy will achieve substantial savings, so this comparison isn't useful for evaluating the argument.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...