United states manufacturers currently produce most of the

[RonPurewal]

EVEN SIMPLER ANALOGY:
imagine a conversation about If I have $1 billion someday, I would xxxxxx..
then hopefully it's obvious that...
...You'll never be able to make that much money is irrelevant to the discussion;
...You have a good chance of making that much money is irrelevant to the discussion;
...anything you'd do if you DIDN'T have $1 billion is irrelevant to the discussion.


IN THIS PROBLEM:
the conclusion of the argument starts with If these initiatives succeed in increasing the demand for solar-power generators...

...so E is irrelevant.

E works in EXACTLY the same way as 'Ron is really big right now' (in the post above) and 'You have a good chance of making $1 billion someday' (here).
all of these things make the 'xxxx' seem more likely... but we don't care, because the discussion is already limited to 'IF xxxx'.

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, a similar principle is at work in the 'malvernia' problem in OG (#72 in the 13th/2015 edition, #89 in the 2016 edition). coincidentally, the choice in question is also choice E.

in that passage (can't reproduce here), the argument is limited to 'IF xxxxxx happens according to plan'. thus (i) anything about the likelihood of this outcome is irrelevant, and (ii) anything about the current progress (or lack thereof) is likewise irrelevant.
choice E is, essentially, 'Have things begun to proceed according to the plan?'
...again, irrelevant, because THE WHOLE POINT OF THE WORD 'IF' is to take all such things off the table!

[NitinG177]

Hello Ron,
I now get as to what i was missing.

I misunderstood the relation between the stem and option E because my judgement was clouded by the observations that i made in real life scenario that are similar to this problem.

What i assumed was that a huge demand increase would take place,

ONLY if the current demand was low

I did not take into consideration the fact that even if the current demand is extremely high , it did not warrant the fact that the demand for the product has saturated.

As the stem stays, if the initiative succeeds in creating additional demand, we should not be concerned about the existing demand, and we can safely conclude that whatever be the current demand this new initiative will surely create a new demand to be met.

Thanks for your analysis.

[tim]

Glad to hear Ron's reply helped!

[RonPurewal]

we can safely conclude that whatever be the current demand this new initiative will surely create a new demand to be met.

Thanks for your analysis.

whoa, no, we can't 'safely conclude' this.
the point is that, for the moment, we're excluding all other possibilities from the discussion.

perhaps this is what you mean, and you've just chosen the wrong words.

but, the word 'conclude' is a very wrong word indeed.
in fact, it's exactly the opposite!
'IF xxxx' is ONLY used when there are other possibilities besides 'xxxx'—in other words, it's NOT 'safe to conclude' xxxx, because alternatives are still in play—but, at the moment, we just don't want to discuss those alternatives.

if 'xxxx' is something that CAN be 'safely concluded'... then you don't say 'if' in front of it.
(if you are absolutely sure that it will rain today, then you will NOT start a sentence with If it rains today.... you'd only say that if you were unsure.)

[RonPurewal]

consider this example from above:
If Ron can lose 100 pounds, ...

clearly we cannot 'safely conclude' that ron can lose 100 pounds. (in fact, it's quite safe to conclude that this is actually impossible.)

...but that's not the point.

the point is that, no matter how farfetched/absurd this hypothetical case may be, it's the only case we're currently discussing.

--

again, it's possible that you had this idea in mind all along. if that's the case, excellent.
but since 'safely conclude' is the exact opposite of what is actually happening, i feel the need to clarify.

[AshishB425]

Please let me know if i am correct.

Fact - US manufactures will not be competitive in Europe.
Premise - US is taking initiatives to increase the demand.

Based on above the Conclusion - US manufactures will maintain higher production levels.

Assumption - US manufacturers will certainly meet this new demand created by the initiatives taken by US govt.

Now between close choices C & E

C - US manufactures has advantage over other manufactures (European - who have stopped US manufactures to compete in their market) - so this choice indirect confirms that these Europeans would not eat away the new demand.

E - The current market is limited. Whether the market is limited or not, it will definitely grow because of the initiative of the Govt. (we cant question the facts - hence the market will grow) but the bigger question is whether US manufactures will be benefited or not.

C provides us will the answer that US manufacturers will be benefited but E leaves us with no answer.

[RonPurewal]

this problem is already explained exhaustively here (on the first page of this thread).

in order to avoid redundancy, please read through the entire thread (or, at a minimum, my posts). whatever you are trying to ask, the answers are probably there already.

if you have a question that is not addressed in the earlier discussion, then please ask that specific question here.

thanks.

[NinaP494]

Why isnt B relevant? If efficiency increases, it will hamper the demand for generator even if the demand for solar power increases

[RonPurewal]

read the argument:
If these initiatives succeed in increasing the demand for solar-power generators in the United States...

because of that "if" part ^^ we are concerned ONLY with the situation in which DEMAND INCREASES.
you are trying to hypothesize a situation in which demand DOESN'T increase -- but, by definition, any such situation is irrelevant. that's the whole point of the word "If".

(just think about a statement like "If I had $100 million, I would..." -- if someone says this, then, ANY imaginary situation in which the person DOESN'T have $100 million is irrelevant.)

[RonPurewal]

...also, solar-power generators (like other power generators) are not shared between individuals or businesses; there's one power generator for each building.

so, there wouldn't be an effect on demand like the one you're describing, anyway. (that could only happen if the generators were shared among many different buildings.)

[NinaP494]

Yes - makes total sense. Thanks Ron

read the argument:
If these initiatives succeed in increasing the demand for solar-power generators in the United States...

because of that "if" part ^^ we are concerned ONLY with the situation in which DEMAND INCREASES.
you are trying to hypothesize a situation in which demand DOESN'T increase -- but, by definition, any such situation is irrelevant. that's the whole point of the word "If".

(just think about a statement like "If I had $100 million, I would..." -- if someone says this, then, ANY imaginary situation in which the person DOESN'T have $100 million is irrelevant.)

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.