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

It is currently 22 Oct 2014, 18:05

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
avatar
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 373
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 2

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 29 Oct 2009, 17:37
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

36% (02:28) correct 64% (01:17) wrong based on 10 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.
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 428
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 90 [1] , given: 14

Re: cr [#permalink] New post 29 Oct 2009, 20:56
1
This post received
KUDOS
IMO C.........
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 213
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [1] , given: 9

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 16 Nov 2011, 18:20
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"

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Status: Yeah well whatever.
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 347
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q42 V39
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.49
WE: Analyst (Insurance)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 17

Re: cr [#permalink] New post 30 Oct 2009, 06:45
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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 266
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 3

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 30 Oct 2009, 10:02
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
Senior Manager
avatar
Status: Yeah well whatever.
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 347
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q42 V39
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.49
WE: Analyst (Insurance)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 17

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 30 Oct 2009, 14:23
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
Senior Manager
avatar
Status: Yeah well whatever.
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 347
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q42 V39
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.49
WE: Analyst (Insurance)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 17

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 30 Oct 2009, 14:26
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
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 305
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 9

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 31 Oct 2009, 03:01
well, I'd have chosen A for this question and 'am confused with C!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 135
Location: United States
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 5

Reviews Badge
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 16 Nov 2011, 08:08
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
Senior Manager
avatar
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: 276
Location: Kuwait
Schools: Columbia university
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 52

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 16 Nov 2011, 14:24
I am confused between E and C? any explanation please?
_________________

Sky is the limit

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 708
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 37

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 16 Nov 2011, 18:57
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 Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 818
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
Schools: Ross '17, Duke '16
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 43

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 17 Nov 2011, 00:05
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 :)

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

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

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] New post 17 Nov 2011, 00:19
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, 00:19
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have amansingla4 4 25 Jun 2006, 00:59
8 Experts publish their posts in the topic Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have cool_jonny009 12 16 Feb 2006, 20:28
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®.