Hi Carcass,
What about answer B) No new deposits of gas, oil, and coal will be discovered in the near future. ?
My thought process goes with the last sentence, in terms of availability. If more gas, coal, and oil is found, wouldn't it be a more viable option since it would be cheaper (for a time at least)?

While I agree that C is the best answer, I was just curious on your thoughts on B's train of thought.

I do think you do have misinterpreted the context of availability.

The price will fluctuate according to the availability of classic energy resources: if they will be scarce AND the demand will be stable or even higher, then the price will increase in the future or vice-versa.

Demand and offer law.

B says that no NEW deposit will discover BUT this nothing is related to the renewable resources and our assumption that they must be predictable in their exploits.

Of course, even whether we do not find new oil deposit that not means for the next 200 years we will have petroleum for our industrial society and the economic progress as a whole.

Hope now is clear.

Regards

"The utility companies claim that although these sources require significant initial capital investment, they will provide stable energy supplies at low cost."

This is the claim. The question asks what assumptions must be made for them to beleive/make this claim. While the availability of gas is, in the greater context of "should we be trying to use alternative resources," important, the question isn't asking about that. It is ONLY asking about what must the companies assume in order for them to claim that it will provide stable energy supply at LOW COST. The key here, as to why your answer is wrong, is that the claim is AT LOW COST and not AT LOWER COST. Its a small difference, but a very important one. LOW COST is a self contained value while LOWER COST is the cost relative to the other options. In short, they must assume that the energy WILL be stable and that it WILL have a low cost. More gass/coal will not directly affect the cost of the resource, nor will it have any affect on how stable and sustainable it is, thus it is incorrect. Similarly, neither A D nor E directly affect the stability or cost of the alternative energy. C, on the other hand would. Stability of the resource requires knowing that the weather won't be stange and sporatic. Therefore, assuming that the weather is consistent and predicatable is an assumption of the claim that the new resource could be stable and cheap, due to it's relation to the claim of stability.

without doubt C

You said: Similarly, neither A D nor E directly affect the stability or cost of the alternative energy. C, on the other hand would.

I chose A, because you have to have people willing to subscribe to renewable resources as a power source. If the public does not embrace solar and wind energy, then it would in fact be a risky endeavor because it would not pay off and so companies would not be able to offer wind and solar power at low cost.

I feel that A is just as good an answer as C. Am I not seeing something that others are?

Can anyone explain why no E

We identify this to be an assumption question because of the word presupposes. This means that we find out an answer choice that links the argument's conclusion and premise or in simple terms supports the claim in this case.

Claim : The renewable energy sources will provide a STABLE energy source because the Non Renewable energy sources will fluctuate based on availability.

The assumption therefore could be that the renewable energy sources such as water WILL BE AVAILABLE always thereby providing a STABLE source of power.

Let's look at the Options now.

A - Nothing can be assumed about the Public's reaction.

B - This could be the assumption - However this option only talks about the near future.

C - This option provides support for the contention that water will always be available and therefore will make a stable source.

D - Nothing about technology.

E - Nothing about risk