In Thailand, use of solid fuel (e.g., coal, wood) as a share of total household fuel use fell by approximately 40 percent between 2000 and 2019. Such shifts are typically explained by appeal to the energy ladder, a model holding that fuel choice is mediated mainly by household income (specifically, high-technology fuels displace solid fuels as incomes rise).
Which finding, if true, would most directly weaken the potential explanation?
Choose one correct answer:
A. According to a study, developed countries like America usually prefer to use natural gas, a kind of high-technology fuel, over coal and wood.
B. One study in Thailand shows that the national household income experienced a gradual increase between 2000 and 2019.
C. Comparisons between Thailand and Vietnam indicate that the two countries share the same pattern in the relationship between use of solid fuel and household income.
D. One study of fuel use in Kenya shows that although income of course constrained fuel choice, several factors, including the type of dwelling a household occupies, influenced these decisions.
Answer (2)
The best answer that weakens the energy ladder theory is option D, which indicates that factors other than income, such as the type of dwelling, also influence fuel choice. This implies that household fuel use is affected by more than just income levels. Hence, income alone may not adequately explain the shift from solid fuels to high-technology fuels in Thailand.
;
In this question, we are examining the theory of the energy ladder, which suggests that as household income increases, people tend to move from using solid fuels like coal and wood to high-technology fuels such as natural gas. The question asks us to identify which finding would most directly weaken this explanation for the shift in fuel use in Thailand between 2000 and 2019.
Let's evaluate each option:
A. According to a study, developed countries like America usually prefer to use natural gas, a kind of high-technology fuel, over coal and wood.
This option does not directly weaken the energy ladder explanation in Thailand because it refers to fuel preferences in developed countries, which already tend to follow the pattern described by the energy ladder.
B. One study in Thailand shows that the national household income experienced a gradual increase between 2000 and 2019.
This option supports the energy ladder explanation rather than weakens it, as it aligns with the idea that rising incomes lead to a transition to high-technology fuels.
C. Comparisons between Thailand and Vietnam indicate that the two countries share the same pattern in the relationship between the use of solid fuel and household income.
This option also does not weaken the potential explanation, as it suggests the consistency of the energy ladder model across different countries.
D. One study of fuel use in Kenya shows that although income, of course, constrained fuel choice, several factors, including the type of dwelling a household occupies, influenced these decisions.
This option could weaken the energy ladder explanation in Thailand if similar non-income-related factors influenced fuel choice there as well. It suggests that factors other than income, such as the type of dwelling, might play a significant role in the choice of fuel.
Therefore, the correct answer is D . This finding directly questions the sole influence of household income on fuel choice, thereby weakening the energy ladder model as the singular explanation for the shift in fuel use in Thailand.
