Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardStrengthening Arguments

To cut heating costs, the management of a high-rise office complex replaced all single-pane windows with double-pane low-emissivity glass. Although weather conditions over the following winter were identical to those of the previous winter, the building's overall energy consumption for heating increased by 8 percent. The management concluded that the new windows were defective and failed to provide the promised thermal insulation.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion drawn by the building management?

  1. A
    The average internal thermostat settings across all office suites were raised by 3 degrees Celsius during the second winter to accommodate tenant complaints.
  2. B
    Single-pane windows installed in nearby residential apartments required lower maintenance costs over the same period than did the newly installed low-emissivity glass.
  3. A building-wide policy implemented prior to the second winter reduced evening office hours, which under typical operating conditions lowers overall heating energy demand by at least 10 percent.Answer
  4. D
    The manufacturer of the double-pane windows recently introduced a revised installation guide for commercial residential buildings.
  5. E
    The initial purchase cost of the double-pane low-emissivity windows was higher than the management had budgeted for the facility upgrade project.

Answer

The argument is most strengthened by the statement indicating that a building-wide policy reduced evening office hours, which normally lowers heating energy demand by at least 10 percent.
The conclusion asserts that defective window insulation caused an unexpected 8% increase in heating energy consumption despite identical weather conditions. The option stating that evening operating hours were reduced—a change that normally cuts heating demand by 10%—strongly supports the conclusion. If heating demand dropped, energy consumption should have decreased; the fact that it rose by 8% demonstrates an even severe failure in thermal efficiency than the raw figures initially suggested.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the argument into premises and conclusion
Premises: Single-pane windows were replaced with double-pane low-emissivity glass; weather conditions were identical across both winters; heating energy consumption increased by 8%. Conclusion: The new windows were defective and failed to insulate properly.
Identifying the core causal claim (defective windows caused increased energy consumption) isolates the logical gap that needs support.
2
Determine the required strengthening mechanism
To strengthen the conclusion, we must rule out alternative explanations for the energy increase or show that energy consumption should have dropped even further under normal operations.
Demonstrating that operational factors pushed heating demand down makes the actual 8% energy increase even more anomalous and directly attributable to defective window insulation.
3
Evaluate the impact of reduced operating hours
If reduced operating hours should have lowered heating demand by 10%, an actual increase of 8% represents an 18% net deficit in thermal performance, strongly confirming window defectiveness.
Eliminating operational workload as a driver of energy consumption rules out confounders and confirms the insulating failure.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Arguments by Ruling Out Alternative Causes and Establishing Baseline Expectations
Rate this question

Topics

Strengthening Arguments

More questions from this topic