Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
04 Sep 2025, 15:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
findingmyself
It looks as though you've missed one critical detail: "a single LED bulb costs much more than five CFL bulbs." So the CFLs should be much more cost efficient already. I hope that clears it up!
For more on (B), check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/compact-fluo ... l#p2772664.
05 Sep 2025, 01:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Great analytical thinking! Let me help you work through the logical issue in your reasoning.
Step 1: Understanding Your Calculation
Your math shows:
LED efficiency: (\frac{50,000 \text{ hours}}{100 \text{ cost}} = 500) hours per unit cost
CFL efficiency: (\frac{10,000 \text{ hours}}{20 \text{ cost}} = 500) hours per unit cost
The Key Issue with Your Logic
Your calculation actually proves that LED and CFL are equally cost-efficient - both give 500 hours per cost unit. But then you conclude CFL needs to get cheaper to compete. This creates a contradiction!
If they're already equally efficient by your calculation, why would CFL need to drop prices to compete?
Step 2: What the Passage Actually Tells Us
The passage states: "a single LED bulb costs much more than five CFL bulbs"
Since LED lasts 5× longer than CFL, if LED costs more than 5× the price, then LED is actually less cost-efficient than CFL on a per-hour basis.
Step 3: The Real Competitive Dynamic
- CFL is already more cost-effective per hour of light
- LED's advantage isn't cost efficiency - it's longevity
This longevity becomes valuable in specific situations
Step 4: Why Answer A Makes Sense
LED would be preferred where replacement difficulty/cost matters more than upfront cost efficiency:
- Hard-to-reach fixtures
- Industrial/commercial settings
- Locations where changing bulbs is expensive/disruptive
Strategic Takeaway: In Critical Reasoning, always check if your mathematical analysis supports your conclusion. Here, the passage suggests LED is less cost-efficient but more convenient - leading us to consider where convenience trumps cost efficiency.
Answer: A
Step 1: Understanding Your Calculation
Your math shows:
LED efficiency: (\frac{50,000 \text{ hours}}{100 \text{ cost}} = 500) hours per unit cost
CFL efficiency: (\frac{10,000 \text{ hours}}{20 \text{ cost}} = 500) hours per unit cost
The Key Issue with Your Logic
Your calculation actually proves that LED and CFL are equally cost-efficient - both give 500 hours per cost unit. But then you conclude CFL needs to get cheaper to compete. This creates a contradiction!
If they're already equally efficient by your calculation, why would CFL need to drop prices to compete?
Step 2: What the Passage Actually Tells Us
The passage states: "a single LED bulb costs much more than five CFL bulbs"
Since LED lasts 5× longer than CFL, if LED costs more than 5× the price, then LED is actually less cost-efficient than CFL on a per-hour basis.
Step 3: The Real Competitive Dynamic
- CFL is already more cost-effective per hour of light
- LED's advantage isn't cost efficiency - it's longevity
This longevity becomes valuable in specific situations
Step 4: Why Answer A Makes Sense
LED would be preferred where replacement difficulty/cost matters more than upfront cost efficiency:
- Hard-to-reach fixtures
- Industrial/commercial settings
- Locations where changing bulbs is expensive/disruptive
Strategic Takeaway: In Critical Reasoning, always check if your mathematical analysis supports your conclusion. Here, the passage suggests LED is less cost-efficient but more convenient - leading us to consider where convenience trumps cost efficiency.
Answer: A
13 Sep 2025, 21:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
option C - Accidental breakages would affect both LED's as well as CFL's equally
