Loading...
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.
Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. |
|
| Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. |
|
| Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth. |
|
The economist starts by establishing a fundamental limitation (current tech can't do both things), then explains what happens if we try anyway (economic damage), and concludes that government research spending is the only way out of this dilemma.
The government needs to increase spending on energy technology research if we want to reduce carbon emissions without hurting economic growth.
This is a necessity argument: Premise 1 shows current tech creates an either/or situation, Premise 2 explains the consequences of one choice, and the conclusion argues that government research spending is necessary to escape this constraint and achieve both goals simultaneously.
Assumption - We need to find what must be true for the economist's conclusion to hold. The economist concludes that government spending on energy research is necessary to achieve both emission reduction and economic growth.
The argument makes specific claims about current technology's limitations (cannot do both goals), the necessity of government spending, and the causal relationship between research spending and new technology development.
To find assumptions, we need to identify gaps in the logical chain that could break the conclusion. The economist jumps from 'current tech can't do both' to 'government research spending is necessary.' We should look for unstated beliefs that connect these dots - like whether other solutions exist, whether government research will actually work, or whether new technology is the only path forward.
This creates a false conditional relationship that the argument doesn't require. The economist never suggests that failure of energy research would automatically cause economic stagnation. The argument is about finding a path to achieve both goals simultaneously, not about what happens if research fails. The economist could still believe other solutions might exist if research doesn't work out, so this assumption isn't necessary for the conclusion to hold.
This directly addresses the logical gap in the economist's argument. The economist jumps from 'we need new technology' to 'government spending is necessary' without explaining why government research is the answer. For this conclusion to be valid, we must assume that government spending will be more effective than private research, corporate R&D, or other funding sources. This assumption is absolutely required - if non-governmental spending were equally or more likely to succeed, then government spending wouldn't be necessary.
This is far too weak for what the argument requires. The economist doesn't just claim that some government spending 'may' be required - the conclusion states that increases in government spending 'will be necessary.' The word 'may' introduces possibility rather than necessity, and the argument makes a much stronger claim than this choice suggests.
This focuses on cost comparisons that are completely irrelevant to the economist's argument. The economist never discusses the relative costs of action versus inaction, nor does the conclusion depend on any cost-benefit analysis. The argument is about technological necessity, not economic trade-offs between different policy approaches.
While this might seem related since the argument mentions energy conservation, it's not a required assumption. The economist already acknowledges that conservation efforts alone aren't sufficient ('Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot...'). The argument doesn't require that conservation efforts must continue alongside new technology - it could work with new technology alone.