Engineer: Thermophotovoltaic generators are devices that convert heat into electricity. The process of manufacturing...

Irina on August 2, 2019

@Minerva,

Let's look at the argument.

Thermophotovoltaic generators convert heat into electricity.
Stell manufacturing involves a lot of waste heat.
______________________________________
Therefore, if steel manufacturers could feed the heat into these generators, they would greatly reduce their electric bills and save money.

Notice that "reduce electric bills" is the intermediate conclusion here that is used to support the main conclusion that the plants would "save money."

(D) is incorrect because the conclusion only requires an assumption that plants use electricity in some manner, not that electricity is their "primary source" of energy as this answer choice suggests;

(E) has no impact on the validity of the conclusion because it talks about other technology and other types of energy rather than heat, whereas the engineer's argument concerns only thermophotovoltaic generators and waste heat.

Does this make sense? Let me know if you have any other questions.

Margarita on July 27 at 10:04AM

The problem I have with this whole passage is that it never says "save money overall." It says "save money," which can mean saving $1 out of $1,500 that is spent on the whole energy process. Although C is the "correct" answer in this case, I don't think the answer choice isn't required for this passage to make sense. To save money does not necessarily mean that you balance or get return on investment on the money spent. A definition online even says : "to save money: to budget, to economize; to put money aside for the future verb. I saved $500 by flying coach instead of first class". This answer choice makes no logical sense, unless you interpret the term in the subjective way that is required.

Margarita on July 27 at 10:05AM

the answer choice is* required I meant to say^

Emil-Kunkin on July 30 at 10:40PM

While I do think reasonable minds can disagree on this there's one clearer interpretation of the passage, and that's that it is saying this chance can save them money full stop. The conclusion is that this will save them money. No reasonable person would consider saving 1 cent at the cost of 1 dollar actually saves one money. It would thus be pretty bizzare to read the passage as suggesting this is how the author intended it. If the passage said that this would therefore reduce their energy costs, or help them save money on energy I would agree with you. However, the sentence says saving money- full stop. No need to read things into the passage that are not there. In order for the program to save money, what one spends on a program must be less than the cost reduction, at least in the long term. While your interpretation isn't wrong per se, it's a much harder interpretation to defend. When there are more than one reasonable interpretations of a statement I'm usually inclined to follow the one that aligns more with common sense- especially if it aligns perfectly with an answer choice.