|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 373
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 2
|
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
 29 Oct 2009, 18:37
Question Stats:
30% (02:42) correct
70% (01:17) wrong based on 0 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 432
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
52
[1] , given: 14
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
IMO C.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: Yeah well whatever.
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 351
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q42 V39
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.49
WE: Analyst (Insurance)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
40
[0], given: 17
|
I get A. If the cost efficiency of solar power is much better than the price has declined quite a bit. If the difference between the price of solar and oil power is still $35 than the price of oil dropped too. The use of “dramatically” makes this even more apparent. Somebody Kudo me if I’m right.
_________________
He that is in me > he that is in the world. - source 1 John 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 273
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
30 Oct 2009, 11:02
IMO C, as technological improvement in solar equipments is countered by technological changes which have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants, and this explains why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has not decreased its threshold of economic viability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: Yeah well whatever.
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 351
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q42 V39
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.49
WE: Analyst (Insurance)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
40
[0], given: 17
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
30 Oct 2009, 15:23
abhi758, I'm almost sure that C is the trap answer. The efficiency of the plant has nothing to do with the actual cost of oil- especially if oil is the input rather than the output (the statement doesn't say though). And even if there's increased efficiency then it's a leaping assumption to believe that that means a difference in the cost of oil. But what's the OA? Anyone know?
_________________
He that is in me > he that is in the world. - source 1 John 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: Yeah well whatever.
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 351
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q42 V39
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.49
WE: Analyst (Insurance)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
40
[0], given: 17
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
30 Oct 2009, 15:26
I stand corrected. http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t7885.html
_________________
He that is in me > he that is in the world. - source 1 John 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 313
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
50
[0], given: 9
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
31 Oct 2009, 04:01
well, I'd have chosen A for this question and 'am confused with C!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 5
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
16 Nov 2011, 09:08
vannbj wrote: abhi758, I'm almost sure that C is the trap answer. The efficiency of the plant has nothing to do with the actual cost of oil- especially if oil is the input rather than the output (the statement doesn't say though). And even if there's increased efficiency then it's a leaping assumption to believe that that means a difference in the cost of oil. But what's the OA? Anyone know? Hi, I think A only says - a specific case of cost reduction. That does not give a reason for the constant threshold value. Agreed... If one reduces, the other reduces equally, since both use oil. BUt, we do not know, how many are oil-fired and other similar details. So, possibly, when cost reduces, and number of two types of plants are unknown, we cannot conclude. However, C is a typical GMAT answer, I'd say. If changes affected the oil-fired too, difference should be even. I think the value 35, might provoke people to calculate. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: D-Day is on February 10th. and I am not stressed
Affiliations: American Management association, American Association of financial accountants
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 278
Location: Kuwait
Schools: Columbia university
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 52
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
16 Nov 2011, 15:24
I am confused between E and C? any explanation please?
_________________
Sky is the limit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 210
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[1] , given: 5
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
16 Nov 2011, 19:20
1
This post received
KUDOS
Would go with 'C' too. Economic viability= Price of a barrel of oil required to produce 'X' watts electricity- Cost of obtaining same Watts of electricity from solar power. This means this difference has remained steady at $35.00, indicating that option 'C' could be one strong reason for it because we know that 'technological improvements' have taken place. (A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically. - contrary to the statement of economic viability which is increase in the price of a barrel of oil. (B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs
for that equipment. - not needed (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.- Adds a new element (E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable.- Adds a new element
_________________
"Always....Read between the lines"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 709
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 37
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
16 Nov 2011, 19:57
Great question !!
Was tricked in considering A the correct answer. MGMAT forum has some detailed explanation as to how C is correct here.
Crick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 787
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Finance
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 18
Kudos [?]:
80
[0], given: 35
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
17 Nov 2011, 01:05
Here is the same kind as this question. If all you guy confront this first, it may be easier. :D Quote: Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability"(the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.
Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point
of price viability?
A) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
B) The decreased in the cost of recycling equipment have occured despite
increased in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.
C) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.
D) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber,
rather than directly from the tree themselves
E) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive,
forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut.
_________________
Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 2
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
17 Nov 2011, 01:19
Great post, but as an improvement to the old one as Torgard says, a bit more detail would be cool. For example, why they are/are not beneficial and also at which level they stop becoming beneficial.P.S - You're a mod now, you can sticky important information......
bpwfoundation org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have
[#permalink]
17 Nov 2011, 01:19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
