Question

The assumption/assumptions of the argument is/are which of the following?
Statement I: Hydro electric power is a renewable source of energy.
Statement II: Hydro electric power is comparatively cheaper.

Answer 1

The argument in the passage highlights that due to the increase in oil prices, we need to focus on hydro-electric projects. The passage implies that hydroelectric power can serve as a viable alternative to oil. This statement rests on certain assumptions, which must be identified.
Let’s examine the assumptions:
Statement I: Hydro electric power is a renewable source of energy.
This must be assumed to justify the shift from oil to hydroelectricity. Since the passage argues for the need to "tap such renewable sources," it assumes that hydroelectricity qualifies as renewable energy. Therefore, this statement is definitely assumed.
Statement II: Hydro electric power is comparatively cheaper.
The motivation for moving away from oil is rooted in the increasing prices of oil. The argument to shift interest toward hydroelectric projects implies that hydroelectric power is more affordable or cost-effective than oil. Otherwise, the transition would not solve the problem of rising energy costs. Hence, this assumption is also necessary for the argument.
Therefore, both assumptions — that hydro power is renewable and cheaper — are integral to the argument’s logic.
Option 1 — incorrect because only Statement I is considered, but both are needed.
Option 2 — incorrect because Statement II alone is insufficient.
Option 3 — correct, as explained.
Option 4 — incorrect, both assumptions are valid.

Answer 2

The core argument is that due to the rise in oil prices, it is vital to shift attention to hydroelectric projects, as they represent a renewable source of energy and are implicitly more economical or practical in the long run.
To weaken this argument, we need a statement that challenges the premise or the feasibility of switching to hydroelectric power. Let us evaluate each option:
Option 1: If the generation of hydroelectric power is more costly than oil, then the rationale to switch to hydro becomes weak or invalid. The increased cost would mean that hydro is not a viable alternative to expensive oil, thus directly weakening the argument.
Option 2: This explains why oil prices have risen but does not weaken the argument for using hydro power. It is a context statement, not a contradiction.
Option 3: This is a general truth and does not address whether hydroelectric power is a good or bad alternative. It does not affect the argument’s strength.
Option 4: Incorrect because Option 1 does weaken the argument.
Hence, Option 1 is the correct choice because it undermines the core argument for preferring hydro power.