egmat wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Here's another question from
e-GMAT. It is an evaluate question type, which, as experience of recent test takers suggest, is becoming more important on GMAT.
Share your answers with analysis. Looking forward to a health discussion
A zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power. The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States. Given that we can satisfy our electricity needs by harnessing only 40% of the wind energy resources in these 12 states, it is extremely likely that we will be able to do away with CO2.
Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate the above argument?
A. What is the amount of wind energy resources available in rest of the states in the United States?
B. Are there any other renewable energy resources such as solar power, which can be used?
C. With the use of current technologies, what proportion of electricity generated through wind energy can be stored for use at future times when wind may not be blowing?
D. Are there strong corporate lobbies which will strongly oppose any move to substitute non-renewable sources of energy?
E. What proportion of wind energy is available only at inaccessible areas?
-Chiranjeev Singh
The question stems talks about the US achieving a zero CO2 economy in the next 30 to 50 years. Wind energy seems to be a viable source of alternative energy and that it is extremely likely that the US will be able to do away with CO2. The assumption behind this argument is that the demand for the use of energy would not have exceeded the current amount of energy that wind can generate in the next 30 years. Who knows? There may be some other assumptions that I have not considered. But at least I understand the prompt and the right answer is likely to jump at me.
A. What is the amount of wind energy resources available in rest of the states in the United States?
Well, we already the amount of wind energy that is available. The question is how viable is the current wind energy that we have even discovered? Can we use it? This option is irrelevant.
B. Are there any other renewable energy resources such as solar power, which can be used?
We have not finished using wind energy. So this opion has nothing to do with the argument since we already know that wind energy is enough to meet with our needs. Why look to the sun?
C. With the use of current technologies, what proportion of electricity generated through wind energy can be stored for use at future times when wind may not be blowing?
This options looks popular but I disagree with it. We are talking about achieving zero CO2 economy in 30 years or so. What has current technology got to do with it? I-phone 5 will be an obsolete technology in 3 years time, not to talk of 30.
D. Are there strong corporate lobbies which will strongly oppose any move to substitute non-renewable sources of energy?
Quite trickish. Not all lobbies are successful. Popular demand can throw lobbies into a tailspin. But we need to do the acid test. If we answer yes to the question, it looks as if the argument may no longer hold. What if we answer no? Makes no difference; it doesn't make the argument stronger in any way. We still need to know if we can even use the wind.
E. What proportion of wind energy is available only at inaccessible areas?
There you go! If the proportion of the wind that is available in inaccessible area is very , low, say 5%, then that means 95% of the wind is available for use. What if only 1% of the wind is accessible for use and the remaining 99% is 100,000 feet above sea level? That means all the wind energy discovered is not even available.
I am 95% sure the answer is E.