Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 21 May 2013, 03:20
Customize  |  Hide

Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 285
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [1] , given: 243

Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton [#permalink] New post 04 Feb 2013, 21:18
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00

Question Stats:

61% (03:16) correct 38% (01:48) wrong based on 2 sessions
Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton delivered than for high-quality coal. Yet more low-quality coal than high—quality coal must be burned to generate the same amount of electricity. Moreover, per ton of coal burned, low-quality coal generates more ash than does high-quality coal, and the disposal of ash is becoming more and more expensive.
The considerations above, if true, most strongly support which of the following claims?

A. A coal-burning utility might not be assured of benefiting economically by always adhering to the policy of keeping its overall coal purchasing costs as low as possible.
B. In those regions where the cost of disposing of coal ash is negligible, it is more expensive for coal-burning utilities to use high-quality coal than low-quality coal.
C. Transportation costs represent a smaller proportion of the cost per delivered ton for low-quality coal than for high-quality coal.
D. It is no less expensive to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of high-quality coal than it is to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of low-quality coal.
E. In regions where coal-ash disposal is the least expensive, reserves of low-quality coal are likely to decline at a faster rate than are reserves of high-quality coal.

Can someone provide detailed explanations of the answer choices. Thanks!
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Director
Director
Status:
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 504
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 160 [0], given: 9

Re: Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 02:47
A) CORRECT. Although utilities pay less for low-quality coal, they must use more of it and also bear expenditures involved in ash disposal. Therefore a policy of always buying low-quality coal might not always lead to economic benefit if the costs are greater than the savings.
B) Incorrect. Even if the cost of disposing coal ash is negligible, utilities must buy more of low-quality coal to generate the same amount of electricity. Therefore the savings from buying low-quality coal (as compared to high-quality coal) may be mitigated through the increased usage of low quality coal. Therefore we cannot conclude reasonably that buying high-quality coal will be more expensive in this situation.
C) Incorrect. We are not given any details on the proportion of costs involved so cannot make this conclusion.
D) Incorrect. We are given no information about disposal costs, so we cannot compare.
E) Incorrect. The rate of decline of coal reserves are not based on the costs involved in disposing off ash generated through burning the coal. We cannot reasonably draw this conclusion.

A) is therefore the correct answer.
_________________

Free profile evaluation by top b-school alumni: email us at info@gyanone.com
B-school application service http://www.gyanone.com/appone.html

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 259
Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 68

Re: Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 11:57
fozzzy wrote:
Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton delivered than for high-quality coal. Yet more low-quality coal than high—quality coal must be burned to generate the same amount of electricity. Moreover, per ton of coal burned, low-quality coal generates more ash than does high-quality coal, and the disposal of ash is becoming more and more expensive.
The considerations above, if true, most strongly support which of the following claims?

A. A coal-burning utility might not be assured of benefiting economically by always adhering to the policy of keeping its overall coal purchasing costs as low as possible.
B. In those regions where the cost of disposing of coal ash is negligible, it is more expensive for coal-burning utilities to use high-quality coal than low-quality coal.
C. Transportation costs represent a smaller proportion of the cost per delivered ton for low-quality coal than for high-quality coal.
D. It is no less expensive to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of high-quality coal than it is to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of low-quality coal.
E. In regions where coal-ash disposal is the least expensive, reserves of low-quality coal are likely to decline at a faster rate than are reserves of high-quality coal.

Can someone provide detailed explanations of the answer choices. Thanks!


Why D is wrong?

D is assumption , right? What if disposal of Coal ash from low quality coal cost $10 and disposal of Coal ash from High quality coal cost $50.

Assumption is hidden premise--> Strengthner

D. It is no less expensive to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of high-quality coal than it is to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of low-quality coal.
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN

Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Re: Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 14:20
Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton delivered than for high-quality coal. Yet more low-quality coal than high—quality coal must be burned to generate the same amount of electricity. Moreover, per ton of coal burned, low-quality coal generates more ash than does high-quality coal, and the disposal of ash is becoming more and more expensive.

I'm going to do a hypothetical based on what's given: Ordering a ton of coal. It's 45 dollars for a ton of low quality coal, and $10 for a ton of high quality coal. Hypothetically, say 1.5 tons is needed to generate electricity from low quality coal, and 1 ton is needed to generate electricity from high quality coal. This means our costs are at $7.50 for low quality coal buyers, and $10 for high quality coal buyers for the generation of electricity. Now we will look up disposal, for a ton of low quality coal we will say it'd $10 a ton for disposal, and $5 for high quality coal disposal. This creates low quality coal burning ton price of $17.5 and a high quality price off 15$. Ultimately, this isnt necessary to do, but it paints the picture.

The considerations above, if true, most strongly support which of the following claims?

A. A coal-burning utility might not be assured of benefiting economically by always adhering to the policy of keeping its overall coal purchasing costs as low as possible.Correct. This is essentially saying, buying low priced coal might not always be the economic best option. See above, there are other costs which might make it economically not better. Again, this isn't saying that it absolutely must always be true, it's just saying that it must "could be true"
B. In those regions where the cost of disposing of coal ash is negligible, it is more expensive for coal-burning utilities to use high-quality coal than low-quality coalNO. This isn't guaranteed, because aside from disposal you have electricity generation. We don't know if they need far more coal to produce electricity. If the case, this would be false.
C. Transportation costs represent a smaller proportion of the cost per delivered ton for low-quality coal than for high-quality coal. We don't know what transportation costs will even be.
D. It is no less expensive to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of high-quality coal than it is to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of low-quality coal.No. Apples to apples. Could be true, we don't know for sure though.
E. In regions where coal-ash disposal is the least expensive, reserves of low-quality coal are likely to decline at a faster rate than are reserves of high-quality coal. No. We don't know if this is the case or not.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 98
Location: India
GMAT Date: 10-25-2012
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 62

Re: Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton [#permalink] New post 06 Feb 2013, 03:56
Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton delivered than for high-quality coal. Yet more low-quality coal than high—quality coal must be burned to generate the same amount of electricity. Moreover, per ton of coal burned, low-quality coal generates more ash than does high-quality coal, and the disposal of ash is becoming more and more expensive.

The considerations above, if true, most strongly support which of the following claims?

A. A coal-burning utility might not be assured of benefiting economically by always adhering to the policy of keeping its overall coal purchasing costs as low as possible. can be proved from the passage
B. In those regions where the cost of disposing of coal ash is negligible, it is more expensive for coal-burning utilities to use high-quality coal than low-quality coal. output of low quality coal is less, probable lot more low quality coal needs to be burned to match the output of high quality coal and that may equalise or exceed the cost for generating power from low quality coal
C. Transportation costs represent a smaller proportion of the cost per delivered ton for low-quality coal than for high-quality coal. Transportation cost is out of scope
D. It is no less expensive to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of high-quality coal than it is to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of low-quality coal. passage does not compares costs of low quality ash and high quality ash
E. In regions where coal-ash disposal is the least expensive, reserves of low-quality coal are likely to decline at a faster rate than are reserves of high-quality coal. can't be sure,people might use low quality coal because of cost reasons and they might not like to use low quality coal for lower output
_________________

if my post helped you, let me know by pressing Kudos...

Re: Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton   [#permalink] 06 Feb 2013, 03:56
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
New posts A family pays $800 per year for an insurance plan that pays shubhangi 6 11 Nov 2003, 10:45
New posts What is the method? A certain farmer pays $30 per acre per kpinvictus 9 11 Aug 2004, 00:32
New posts A family pays $800 per year for an insurance plan that pays KillerSquirrel 5 23 May 2007, 01:59
New posts A family pays $800 per year for an insurance plan that pays rick_reeves 3 09 Jun 2007, 20:52
New posts EXPERTS_POSTS_IN_THIS_TOPIC A certain farmer pays $30 per acre per month to rent notahug 8 08 Apr 2008, 12:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.