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

It is currently 24 Oct 2014, 16:17

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 418
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 08 May 2008, 11:34
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

----------

Please help me solve it with detail explanation.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 08 May 2008, 11:55
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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 206
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 08 May 2008, 12:00
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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 200
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 08 May 2008, 12:11
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 133
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 08 May 2008, 12:14
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.

----------

Please help me solve it with detail explanation.
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 560
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 108 [1] , given: 2

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 08 May 2008, 12:31
1
This post received
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
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1634
Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 08 May 2008, 14:45
C
_________________

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

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 587
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Schools: Ross '12 (MBA/MS)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 34

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 08 May 2008, 16:07
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.
_________________

Profile | GMAT | Erb Institute

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 418
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 70 [1] , given: 0

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 08 May 2008, 18:30
1
This post received
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
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 21 Jul 2010, 10:06
Whats wrong with A?
Thanks,
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Posts: 229
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 20

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 01 Aug 2010, 07:25
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
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 01 Aug 2010, 08:40
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.

Please clarify.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 03 Jan 2011, 10:58
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.

Please clarify.

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 500
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 149

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 04 Jan 2011, 04:31
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 !
Please let me know your opinion about the Chandigarh Gmat Centrehttp://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-experience-at-chandigarh-india-centre-111830.html

1 KUDOS received
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 279 [1] , given: 2

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 04 Jan 2011, 15:31
1
This post received
KUDOS
mundasingh123 wrote:
Can You Pls quote the source ?


Also, GMATPrep.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 500
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 149

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy [#permalink] New post 05 Jan 2011, 04:53
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 !
Please let me know your opinion about the Chandigarh Gmat Centrehttp://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-experience-at-chandigarh-india-centre-111830.html

Re: CR: Solar energy vs fossil fnergy   [#permalink] 05 Jan 2011, 04:53
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have mailtheguru 10 30 Jul 2006, 11:59
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have amansingla4 4 25 Jun 2006, 00:59
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have kimmyg 6 13 Sep 2005, 04:33
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have Questor 3 15 Dec 2004, 17:49
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have ruhi 5 04 Nov 2004, 05:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.