8

Set 7: Command of Evidence (Advanced)

Explanation

Answer: A

PASSAGE

A city planner advocates for installing solar panels on all municipal buildings, arguing that despite the high upfront cost, the panels will reduce total energy expenditures by 40% over the next twenty years.

Which finding, if true, would most strongly support the planner's projection?

A. The cost of maintaining solar panels is negligible compared to the cost of electricity from the grid.✓ Correct
B. Solar panel technology is expected to become cheaper in the next five years.
C. The city currently spends less on energy than neighboring cities.
D. Most municipal buildings have roofs that are shaded by tall trees.

Detailed Explanation

**Choice A is the best answer. ** The planner argues that panels will reduce *total* expenditures. Even if they generate free power, if maintenance costs were huge, the total expenditure wouldn't drop. Knowing maintenance is 'negligible' confirms that the savings from avoiding grid electricity won't be eaten up by upkeep costs, thus supporting the 40% reduction projection. Choice D weakens the argument (shade reduces efficiency). Choice B refers to future purchase price, but the panels are being installed *now* (upfront cost mentioned). Choice C is irrelevant to the relative savings. Strong evidence directly addresses the claim without requiring additional interpretation. When evaluating options, look for quotes or data that explicitly support the statement. Weak evidence may be tangentially related but doesn't provide direct proof.

Key Evidence:

• "reduce total energy expenditures"

Why others are wrong: D (Weakens argument), B (Irrelevant to current installation), C (Irrelevant).

← PreviousNext →

🎯 Keep Practicing!

Master all sections for your best SAT score

📐Math→📖Vocabulary→