The restaurant business wastes more energy than any other industry in the United States. Nearly 80 percent of the $10 billion spent on energy by the restaurant industry each year is squandered by the use of inefficient equipment. At the same time, approximately 70 percent of restaurants in the United States are small businesses that are usually too cash poor to invest in energy-efficient technology.

Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above?

A- The availability of energy-efficient equipment will reduce the energy costs of the restaurant industry by approximately 30 percent.

B- No industry in the United States spends greater than $10 billion each year on energy.

C- By using energy-efficient technology, a small restaurant will reduce its expenses by a greater percentage than will a large restaurant.

D- Approximately $2 billion of the amount spent on energy each year by the restaurant industry is not squandered.

E- The replacement of inefficient equipment represents the largest potential source of energy savings for the restaurant industry.

The correct answer is E.

(E) CORRECT. Since the waste attributed to the use of inefficient equipment accounts for 80% of the $10 billion spent on energy each year, savings from other sources could account for, at most, 20% of the $10 billion spent. Thus, the replacement of inefficient equipment represents – by far – the largest potential source of energy savings.

Well, obviusly E is correct, but I dont undestand why B is not correct as well. The explanation for B is:

(B) The passage provides no information about the annual energy costs of any industry except the restaurant business. While the passage states that the restaurant business wastes more energy than any other industry in the United States, it makes no claim about the amount spent on energy by the restaurant industry relative to other industries.

Does ir really matter if the passage makes no such claim? It is clear that restaurants waste more energy than any other industry in the United States and that they waste 10 billion so no industry in the United States spends greater than $10 billion each year on energy. I chose B and I think is more direct than E, more reliable.

D seems to be correct as well but the explanation is more convincent if you catch the point, that energy doesnt have to be squandered just on inefficient equipment, there could be other causes (which by the way is not that easy).

(D) According to the passage, $8 billion (80% of the $10 billion spent on energy each year) is squandered on inefficient equipment. This leaves $2 billion unaccounted for in the passage. This does not necessarily mean that some of this $2 billion is not squandered; it simply means that it is not squandered on inefficient equipment. It might, for example, be squandered on employees who forget to turn off the lights after closing.

This is ranked as a 600-700 question. I think which such 3 confusing options it should be ranked higher (or my verbal is even worst than I thought, :-))


What do you think?

Thanks

B- No industry in the United States spends greater than $10 billion each year on energy.

The proof statement is: Nearly 80 percent of the $10 billion spent on energy by the restaurant industry

It just says that the resturant industry spends about $8b on energy. It just says that the resturants waste the most, doesn't mean that they are spending the most on energy.

Hope that helps!

It's tricky, but B isn't right - you have to be really careful with the language.

The restaurant industry spends $10b on energy and wastes about 80% of that or $8b. The restaurant industry also wastes the most of any industry. Spending and wasting are not the same thing.

Another industry might spend $20b on energy but only waste $2b of that. It spends more, but wastes less.

By the same token, as you note, D can't be right. There are lots of other ways to waste energy besides inefficient equipment.

Also, we do have this one marked to be tweaked a bit; we constantly test our questions for validity based upon a database of student responses and we're finding that this one is not what we call "discriminating" enough - that is, the spread of right answers is too uniform across student scoring levels, rather than showing a curve in which the higher scoring students are more likely to get it right. This often indicates imprecision of language in one or two of the wrong answers, so we will be tweaking those. So don't feel too badly about missing this one. :)

You are obviously right!!! It doesnt seem that hard right now :-)

My verbal is killing me XD

Thanks a lot

Luci