The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company."Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy. At the same time, manufacturers are now marketing many home appli

The author here argues that since many appliances have become more energy efficient and since new technologies for home insulation are readily available, the demand for electricity will not increase and thus there is no requirement for construction of new electricity generating plants. Stated in this way, the author fails to mention several key factors and assumptions and makes the argument rife with several instances of poor reasoning. We do not know whether home heating consumes the lion’s share of electricity requirements per home in that locality, or whether the revolutionary technologies for reducing the energy required for heating are cost effective or not. Without such essential data, the argument stands unsubstantiated.

First of all, consider the statement where the author mentions how the home appliances have become more energy efficient as compared to those from a decade earlier. However the author also mentions that survey which justifies the eagerness of home owners to conserve energy has been conducted only recently. Thus one can easily conclude that bench-marking efficiency of appliances against data from a decade earlier is not the correct indicator of performance improvement. One needs to know how much more energy- efficient current appliances are as compared to their immediate predecessors. Only then can one arrive at a definitive conclusion.

The next flawed assumption that the author makes is when he concludes that the energy demands of the locality will not increase due to the availability of more efficient home heating alternatives. However, one can raise a question regarding the exact percentage of electricity consumption that may be attributed to home heating, and whether the availability of efficient alternatives in this field, will contribute substantially to the decrements in the total electricity bill. If a study was conducted by the author which showed that home heating was taking up a significant share of the electricity consumption per household, then only the author’s conclusion would hold some merit. But in the absence of any such evidence, one can deem the author’s conclusion as fallacious.

Furthermore the author concludes in the argument that the overall demand for electricity will not increase in the locality. The mere fact the energy saving alternatives are available in the areas of home appliances and home heating does not necessarily imply that the electricity demands will not increase. Consider the case where a new manufacturing plant is set up in the locality. The proper operation of such a plant would incur huge electricity requirements, for running various commercial purpose machines. Since nothing is mentioned about energy efficient alternatives in this regard, one can safely assume that the net energy requirements of the locality will definitely increase.

Another false assumption that the author makes is where he states that since the energy requirements of the locality has been met by the three plants in operation, hence there is no need for construction of new ones. However, in the case highlighted in the previous in the previous paragraph regarding the establishment of a new manufacturing plant, one can infer the huge amount of energy may be needed. Thus such a situation may indeed necessitate the establishment of a new electricity generation plant.

In conclusion it may be inferred that the author’s argument remains unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the argument the author might incorporate the results of some of the surveys suggested above to give a suitable answer to some very pertinent questions, some of which have been raised in this passage itself. Only then the author can conclude whether the establishment of a new electricity generating plant is required in the locality or not.