Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 16 Jan 2017, 11:48

### 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

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1397
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 0

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2008, 23:14
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 449
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 142 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2008, 23:39
spriya 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.

A) -> Does support since falling oil will mean oil-plants are economical
B) -> Does not support
C) -> Does support
D) -> Out of place
E) -> Does not support since exploiting oil reserves is different than using oil.

Between A) and C) I will go with C) since it explains that Technological changes have also increased effeciency in oil plants in same way as solar.

Its tough one though
Director
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 733
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2008, 23:51
spriya 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.

The threshold is constant.

If the cost effieciency of solar energy has increased, same must be the case for oil production (in order to keep the threshol constant)
Intern
Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 30
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2008, 23:54
A

'Dramatic' fall in oil prices helps 'most' to explain the economic viability
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1397
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2008, 23:59
nmohindru wrote:
spriya 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.

A) -> Does support since falling oil will mean oil-plants are economical
B) -> Does not support
C) -> Does support
D) -> Out of place
E) -> Does not support since exploiting oil reserves is different than using oil.

Between A) and C) I will go with C) since it explains that Technological changes have also increased effeciency in oil plants in same way as solar.

Its tough one though

yeps !!even i had ended up with A,C but selected C .Actually A calls fo increased economic viability lesser the price more the viability.
hence for stable scenario,tech innovations affect both solar and oil equally.
Now im clear !! thanku all
great discussion

OA is C
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Re: cr-tough one   [#permalink] 10 Aug 2008, 23:59
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 12 29 Oct 2009, 17:37
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 16 28 May 2008, 18:21
3 Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 15 08 May 2008, 11:34
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 2 06 Mar 2008, 09:21
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 7 15 Apr 2007, 22:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by