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

 It is currently 29 Apr 2016, 09:44

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 412
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 0

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 12:34
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (01:18) wrong based on 8 sessions

### HideShow timer Statictics

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.

Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has

not decreased its threshold of economic viability?
(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs
for that equipment.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically
viable.

----------

Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 12:55
Premise:
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade.

Conclusion:
However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.

Solar power has become cheaper but it has not changed it's economic vitality as compared to oil fired power plants.

So oil fired power plants must be getting cheaper as well.

(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 206
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 13:00
C. The threshold of economic viability is dependent on new oil fired power plants. If the technological changes have also increased the efficiency of the oil fired power plants as C states, then the relationship between new solar power plants and new oil fired power plants will remain constant -- therefore, if they are both becoming more cost efficient then the threshold remains relatively the same.
Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 200
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 13:11
lexis wrote:
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.

Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has not decreased its threshold of economic viability?

(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs
for that equipment.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically
viable.
.

I will go with C.

Improvements in solar power generation have occurred at the same time as oil-fired generation plants.
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 133
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 13:14
lexis wrote:
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.

Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has
not decreased its threshold of economic viability?

(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
>> Irrelevant.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs
for that equipment.
>> Irrelevant. We are interested in why cost efficiency has not decreased economic viability.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
?

(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
>> Irrelevant.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become econ
omically viable.
>> Irrelevant.

----------

Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 554
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 234 [1] , given: 2

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 13:31
1
KUDOS
Technology made S efficient, but not as efficient as O.Why?
May be Technology is making O efficient at the same time. (OR)
May be price of O is decreasing.

A - Great! it says cost of oil decreased.So this must be the reason.But wait,the premise said 'price per barrel to which...'is unchanged.
(If cost of oil decreased then 'price per barrel to which...' should INCREASE.) OUT.
C - Bingo! Technology is making O efficient. C for me.
Rest of the choices out of scope.
SVP
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1634
Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 197 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 15:45
C
_________________

Check out the new Career Forum
http://gmatclub.com/forum/133

Current Student
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 586
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Schools: Ross '12 (MBA/MS)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 34

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 17:07
C it is. You only want to use solar energy if it's more cost-effective relative to oil-powered energy. While it's true that solar power became more efficient, the parallel increase in efficiency of oil-powered energy does not give solar power any comparative advantage.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 412
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 144 [1] , given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 19:30
1
KUDOS
Thanks for all!
In first time, I could not understand why price per barrel would has to rise. Well, because it is the premise given by author. The paradox, here, is more cost-efficient than last decade but not enough to compete with oil-fired energy.

C helps solve this discrepancy!
Thanks!!!
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1629
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2010, 11:06
Whats wrong with A?
Thanks,
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Posts: 227
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 20

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2010, 08:25
Well, this Q is really playing hide the ball... I would have surely have gone with A on test day!

In C - we don't know by how much the efficiency of oil-fired plants has improved --- lets say its just a negligible .0002% but the price of oil has tanked to like a dollar a barrel --- while solar power efficiency has increased in the last decade by say 2000% then oil-fired plants would only be viable on account of the really cheap price of oil well below the point of eco viability ($36) A doesn't say to what levels the price of oil has tanked but even C doesn't say how the increases in efficiencies of oil-fired plants and solar power plants compare... So I am really not sure how one can reject A... SVP Joined: 16 Jul 2009 Posts: 1629 Schools: CBS WE 1: 4 years (Consulting) Followers: 39 Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 2 Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Aug 2010, 09:40 gmat1011 wrote: Well, this Q is really playing hide the ball... I would have surely have gone with A on test day! In C - we don't know by how much the efficiency of oil-fired plants has improved --- lets say its just a negligible .0002% but the price of oil has tanked to like a dollar a barrel --- while solar power efficiency has increased in the last decade by say 2000% then oil-fired plants would only be viable on account of the really cheap price of oil well below the point of eco viability ($36)

A doesn't say to what levels the price of oil has tanked but even C doesn't say how the increases in efficiencies of oil-fired plants and solar power plants compare... So I am really not sure how one can reject A...

Actually A says that the prices has fallen dramatically., whereas in C the increased efficiency of oil-fired power plants, as you have already mentioned, could be negligible.

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1629
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2011, 11:58
nobody is going to clarify this?

noboru wrote:
gmat1011 wrote:
Well, this Q is really playing hide the ball... I would have surely have gone with A on test day!

In C - we don't know by how much the efficiency of oil-fired plants has improved --- lets say its just a negligible .0002% but the price of oil has tanked to like a dollar a barrel --- while solar power efficiency has increased in the last decade by say 2000% then oil-fired plants would only be viable on account of the really cheap price of oil well below the point of eco viability (\$36)

A doesn't say to what levels the price of oil has tanked but even C doesn't say how the increases in efficiencies of oil-fired plants and solar power plants compare... So I am really not sure how one can reject A...

Actually A says that the prices has fallen dramatically., whereas in C the increased efficiency of oil-fired power plants, as you have already mentioned, could be negligible.

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 499
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 149

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2011, 05:31
Can You Pls quote the source ?
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1629
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 719 [1] , given: 2

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2011, 16:31
1
KUDOS
mundasingh123 wrote:
Can You Pls quote the source ?

Also, GMATPrep.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 499
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 149

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2011, 05:53
Lexis,it would help if u could tag the source in your subsequent posts,Thanks
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy   [#permalink] 05 Jan 2011, 05:53
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 13 24 Jul 2009, 13:43
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 7 15 Feb 2009, 22:08
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 4 11 Aug 2008, 00:14
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 16 28 May 2008, 19:21
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 4 25 Jun 2006, 01:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by