City council member: Demand for electricity has been increasing by 1.5 percent a year, and there simply is no more space to build additional power plants to meet future demand increases. We must therefore begin to curtail usage, which is why I propose passing ordinances requiring energy-conservation measures in all city departments.
The city council member's proposal assumes which of the following?
Existing power plants do not have the capacity to handle all of the projected increase in demand for electricity.
No city departments have implemented energy-conservation measures voluntarily.
Passing ordinances designed to curtail electricity usage will not have negative economic consequences for the city.
Residential consumers are not responsible for the recent increases in demand for electricity.
City departments that successfully conserve energy will set a good example for residential and industrial consumers of electricity.
情景:我们的用电量在增加。由于我们没有空地建造新的发电站了,所以我们应该减少用电。
推理:虽然推理文段内部有方案,但是其在前提中已经论证过了目标和方案的关系了,即,因为不能建造新的发电站,所以只能减少用电量。
顺序的因果逻辑:因为不能建造新的发电站,所以只能减少用电量
(因)前提:不能建造新的发电站
(果)结论:只能减少用电量
因为本题问的是加强,所以答案选项取非后需要反驳结论。
选项分析:
A选项:Correct. 现有的发电站没有空间去增加发电量。若现有的发电站还可以继续增加发电量,那么我们显然不是必须要减少用电量。
B选项:没有一个城市开始了节约能源计划。没有城市开始,并不代表不会开始。
C选项:通过节约电能的法案不会对城市的经济产生负面影响。就算会对经济产生负面影响,也不一定代表减少用电量就是不好的,按照原文逻辑,这个方法几乎是唯一的策略了。
D选项:对于最近增加的用电需求量,居民是没有责任的。本选项和推理文段的结论无关。
E选项:成功节约能源的城市部门将会给耗电居民和工业一个好的例子。本选项和推理文段的结论无关。
council member的主张是“电要省着点用”,选项要给个理由支持他的这个主张。
C: 如果本身电就不够用,即便新条例对经济不利,那也要省着点用。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论