GRE Argument Topic 31

Sample 1:

This memorandum claims that there is no need to construct more electric plants due to an increased interest from the local population in energy conservation. The claims in this memorandum rely on several assumptions being correct, and the writer uses some facts about energy use in the area to support these assumptions. This writer is also relying on the behavior of others to make a recommendation for the future of the electric company. In reality, the only behavior one can predict is his own.

Building a new electricity-generating plant is expensive and time- consuming. Most companies would rather avoid having to do so. The writer in this case appears to have done some research to support his proposition that the three existing plants will be sufficient into the future. The first fact derives from a survey that reports home owners’ desires to conserve energy. The writer does not say how homeowners plan to accomplish that, nor does it reveal in which areas they want to save that energy. Do they want to reduce their electricity usage, or cut back on the amount of heating fuel they consume? They may decide to install a wood or pellet stove to heat their homes instead of reducing their electricity use.

The writer goes on to cite the move on the parts of manufactures to produce and market more energy-efficient appliances as a rationale for maintaining the status quo. It is probably true in every case, that, when consumers today shop for new appliances, they look for the energy star and nod with satisfaction when buying a refrigerator that uses only $60.00 worth of electricity each year. In calculating their savings, they must determine how many years it will take to recoup the cost of that new refrigerator, which, in most cases, will cost upwards of $1000. If the benefit isn’t great enough, they may postpone that purchase. Those building new homes may opt for those new appliances, but the planning department would need to know how much of their total energy usage is demanded by new construction. In addition, new technologies in the insulation and passive solar heating sector have encouraged the planning department to estimate less or static energy demand from their current generators. Retrofitting older homes to take advantage of these new technologies is expensive, and homeowners will once again calculate the cost/savings ratio before making those changes. Passive solar technology is only effective in an area with sufficient sunlight. Is that true of the area where this energy company operates?

After considering the availability of appliances and technologies available to consumers who want to reduce their energy use, the planning committee has concluded that energy use will not increase and may even decline in the future. This conclusion precludes any type of growth in the area. For energy use to remain static, no new factories or homes could be built. In contradiction to this idea is the likelihood that local town and city planners are recruiting new businesses and families to move to their communities.

The final solution proposed by the planning department is to forego any plans for a new power plant and to remain with the three existing plants that have served them well for the past twenty years. This proposal relies on the assumptions’ having sound foundations and the lack of growth in the area. To presume that twenty-year-old machinery will not need upgrading or replacing could lead to unsound financial decision on the part of the power company. The charge this writer should be making to the power company is to act prudently and plan for future growth.

Sample 2:

The author has concluded this argument by saying that there is no need for an additional electric power plant in the area because the total electricity demand in the area is not likely to increase in the future. He has supported his conclusion by citing the availability of new energy-efficient home appliances and systems for homes, and the eagerness of area homeowners to conserve energy. However, the argument loosely relies on several doubtful assumptions, and is therefore unconvincing.

Firstly, the author has talked about homeowners who are increasingly eager to conserve energy and manufacturers who are now marketing many home appliances, such as refrigerators and air conditioners that are energy efficient. However, he has very conveniently ignored industries and offices. The author has not considered that business and commercial electricity usage is much more than what is used in homes. There is a possibility that businesses in the area will increase their use of electricity in the future and that total electricity consumption will actually increase despite declining residential demand of electric power.

The author’s statement also ignores the possibility of increase in population in that area. Hence, an increase in population would result in an increase in electricity usage even if homeowners use appliances that are more electricity efficient. Without taking into account all these possibilities, the author cannot conclude the argument by saying that the total demand for electricity will not increase in the future and therefore, there is no need to construct a new generating plant.

The next point that the author raises is that homeowners are eager to conserve energy. Even then, it is entirely possible that the residents will not be able to afford these new systems and appliances. The author is totally dependent on the assumption that the area residents will actually purchase and install the energy-saving appliances and systems the author is talking about.

Moreover, the author has not mentioned whether new technologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating will be effective for only newly constructed homes or these technologies will also work in the existing homes.

Finally, the author is assuming that no new electric power plants are needed because the three existing plants, which are 20 years old, have always been adequate for the area’s electricity needs. Again, the author has not considered that the 20 year old power plants themselves are using old technologies and hence, might be less energy efficient. While the new plants with new technologies and energy saving machines will be much more efficient. Anyways, machines in the old plants have to be replaced after some time.

Hence, all these points are against the author’s assertion. He has not supported his argument with strong evidence. The author must have supported his statement by showing that the area residents can afford the new energy-efficient appliances and systems and the electricity demand of the businesses in that area will also not increase in the near future. He should have explored whether the new energy-efficient technologies are available for businesses as well, and whether area businesses also plan to use them. The author should have studied about the expected changes in the area’s population, and about the condition and energy-efficiency of the three existing electric power plants.