PrepTest 120, Section 4, Question 7
If cold fusion worked, it would provide almost(46 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(13 more words not shown)
- ACold-fusion power plants(13 more words not shown)
- BEnvironmental regulations now(20 more words not shown)
- CMost electric companies(11 more words not shown)
- DOnly a relatively(16 more words not shown)
- EPersonnel costs for(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Almost limitless power from much cheaper materials sounds like a recipe for much smaller electric bills. Why would households save no more than 25 percent?
Perhaps producing the power is only part of what we're paying for. New plants might be expensive to build. Safety regulations might add costs. Or a company might keep some savings instead of passing every dollar to customers. Cheap raw materials don't automatically make the entire service cheap.
We need to hold on to both predictions: cold fusion would use very inexpensive materials, yet replacing the traditional generators would produce a relatively limited reduction in bills. A 25 percent reduction would still be welcome; the puzzle is why the savings wouldn't be much larger.
What we’re looking for
The EXCEPT matters. Four answers help explain the limited savings. We want the answer that doesn't tell us why the bill would remain so high.
Working the answers
- A
This helps explain it. More expensive construction and maintenance would offset some savings on raw materials. Customers could still be paying substantial amounts for the plant even though its fuel was cheap.
- B
This also helps. More costly regulations would give the company another expense under cold fusion. The raw materials could be inexpensive while compliance costs kept the total cost of providing power relatively high.
- CCorrect
Willingness to adopt the technology doesn't explain the limited reduction in customers' bills. The scenario already asks what would happen if all the traditional generators were replaced. Saying companies would be willing to make that change gives us no remaining cost, offsetting expense, or other reason the savings would be limited.
- D
If fuel accounts for only a small portion of the bill, cutting that expense can only do so much. Imagine most of the payment covers things other than fuel. Even eliminating the fuel expense entirely would leave those other charges. That directly explains why dramatically cheaper raw materials needn't produce a dramatically smaller bill.
- E
Distribution still requires people, regardless of the raw material used to generate electricity. Someone may still need to maintain power lines and perform other work involved in getting power to customers. Those personnel costs don't fall merely because the fuel changes. Unlike D, E doesn't tell us the size of the fuel share, but it does identify a cost the new technology wouldn't remove.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.