GRE Argument Essay 203
The following appeared in the Pine City Gazette.
“Fifteen years ago, Pine City launched an electricity-conservation program that reimbursed residents some of the cost for replacing energy-wasteful motors, home office equipment, and home appliances with energy-efficient ones. For ten years, spending on this program increased annually, and annual total energy consumption declined. But spending on the program began to decline five years ago, and since then Pine City’s total electricity consumption has increased sharply. If this increased usage continues, the city will have to build a costly new power plant. Obviously the best way to avoid this expense is to increase reimbursement to residents for replacing energy-wasteful equipment. This will reduce energy usage to the levels of five years ago.”
The above article appeared in the Pine City Gazette. The arguer wants to recommend the increase in reimbursements to residents of Pine City for replacing their energy-wasteful equipment as this way the energy usage would reduce to the levels of the last five years. The arguer gives various reasons to support his recommendation. The first argument presented by the arguer is an electricity-conservation program that was launched fifteen years ago under which residents were reimbursed some of the cost for replacing their energy-wasteful motors, home appliances, and office equipments with energy efficient ones. This program was successful for ten years as the spending on this program increased, the annual total energy consumption declined. The second argument presented by the arguer is that in the past five years spending on the program has declined and the city’s electricity consumption has increased sharply. The final argument presented by the arguer is that if such increase in electricity usage continues then the city has to build a new power plant. The argument presented by the arguer in support of his recommendation of increasing the reimbursements for the residents is absolutely baseless.
The first argument presented by the arguer is the electricity-conservation program which was launched fifteen years ago and which was a success for the past ten years. The arguer fails to mention the consistency of the program as it is not necessary that the program would keep yielding the same results throughout. It is very much possible that the city needs to make amendments in their program to make it work instead of only increasing reimbursements to the residents. It is very much possible that all the energy-wasteful equipments were exchanged for the energy-efficient ones. The arguer fails to mention the growth of the city as it is possible that the new industries were set up there because of which new electricity consuming machines might have been installed.
The second argument presented by the arguer is the decrease in spending on the electricity-conservation program which resulted in increase in electricity consumption. This assumption by the arguer is absolutely baseless as the arguer has not mentioned a single example which would indicate that because there was less expenditure on the program the electricity consumption increased. It is very much possible that it was due to the new residents in the city. It is also possible that already residing people bought more new appliances to suit their increasing daily needs. The arguer has also not mentioned the increase in population as it can lead to increase in energy consumption.
The third argument presented by the arguer is that if reimbursements are not increased then to meet the energy demands the city has to start a new power plant. The arguer fails to foresee the advantages of setting up a power plant as it would not only meet the increased energy demand but also save the city from discomfort of providing reimbursements. It is also possible that the new plant would help in less energy consumption as the new meter ratings would make people use electricity with care.
Therefore, the recommendation by the arguer is not convincing and hence there should not be any increase in the reimbursements.