Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorStrengthen

Economist: To reduce grid strain during heatwaves, a regional power authority enrolled thousands of households in an automated demand-response program that remotely raises home thermostat settings by 2∘C2^\circ\text{C} during peak afternoon hours, unless a resident manually cancels the adjustment. Although fewer than 15 percent of enrolled households ever overrode the automated adjustments, peak-hour residential electricity consumption across the region fell by only 3 percent, far below the 14 percent reduction predicted by thermodynamic engineering models. Several critics conclude that the engineering models severely overestimated the energy savings of a 2∘C2^\circ\text{C} temperature increase. However, the models were likely accurate; the shortfall is almost certainly attributable to behavioral pre-cooling, in which residents manually set their thermostats several degrees lower than normal in the late morning before the peak period begins.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the economist's argument?

  1. A
    Participating households that actively lowered their thermostat settings in the late morning achieved substantially larger percentage drops in peak-period electricity use than did participating households that maintained steady morning temperatures.
  2. B
    The monthly financial bill credits provided to participating households exceeded the total monetary value of the peak electricity conserved under the demand-response program.
  3. Enrolled households that consistently refrained from lowering their thermostat settings in the late morning experienced peak-hour electricity reductions that closely matched the 14 percent projected by the models.Cevap
  4. D
    Any residential building that maintains an indoor temperature above 24∘C24^\circ\text{C} during afternoon hours will always consume less electricity than a building utilizing continuous morning cooling.
  5. E
    The thermodynamic models relied on regional climate averages rather than accounting for localized microclimates and differences in residential insulation across older neighborhoods.

Cevap

The statement showing that enrolled households that refrained from lowering late-morning thermostat settings achieved peak-hour electricity reductions matching the 14 percent projection most strongly supports the economist's argument.
The economist defends the accuracy of the engineering models against critics by proposing an alternative causal explanation: behavioral pre-cooling in the late morning caused the observed peak-hour shortfall. The finding that enrolled households that did not pre-cool in the late morning realized energy savings that matched the 14 percent projection acts as a crucial control comparison. It proves that the engineering calculations were sound when applied to households with normal pre-peak baseline temperatures, directly substantiating the economist's attribution of the aggregate shortfall to the pre-cooling behavior.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the argument and identify the conclusion and premises.
Premises: An automated 2°C increase during peak hours yielded only a 3% drop in electricity use despite an 85%+ non-override rate, whereas engineering models projected 14%. Conclusion: The models were accurate; the discrepancy was caused by resident pre-cooling in the late morning rather than inherent model flaws.
Strengthening an argument requires pinpointing the exact causal gap between the evidence (the shortfall) and the author's explanation (behavioral pre-cooling vs. model error).
2
Evaluate the underlying assumption and identify what would substantiate the causal attribution.
The economist assumes that when the pre-cooling behavior is absent, the model's projected 14% savings will actually manifest, proving that the model itself was sound.
A standard method to strengthen a causal claim is to demonstrate that in the absence of the hypothesized cause (pre-cooling), the expected outcome under the model occurs (the predicted 14% drop).
3
Match the identified requirement to the answer choices.
The finding that households that did not pre-cool achieved reductions matching the predicted 14% confirms the validity of the model and ties the shortfall directly to the presence of pre-cooling.
This control comparison eliminates the rival hypothesis (flawed thermodynamic models) and confirms the causal link asserted by the economist.

Anahtar Kavram

Causal Validation via Control Group Comparison
Tahmini Süre:1m 35s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Strengthen

Bu konudan daha fazla soru