Namangupta1997 wrote:
Hi
AndrewN I narrowed down to A and C pretty easily. I was torn between whether "difficult and costly to replace" would be a more dominating factor to decide the use of LED over light bulbs or "frequent accidental breakage". I think since we are not given any info about about physical superiority of LEDs over light bulbs, there is a possibility that there is a frequent breakage of LEDs too at that place. This will lead to exorbitant costs instead.
In A, it would make more sense to install an LED where it is complicated make replacements as once an LED is installed, it would surely run for a decent amount of time.
Am I thinking on the right lines ?
Yes,
Namangupta1997, you are thinking along the correct line of reasoning. I was not immediately taken with answer choice (A), but I did not see a solid reason to eliminate it. (C), however, goes against the narrative. Why would someone want to use expensive LED bulbs
in locations where there is frequent accidental breakage of bulbs? It would probably make more sense to purchase the cheaper CFL bulbs and let them break with ready replacements in hand. Also, since these breakages are
accidental, we cannot say that perhaps someone would be more careful after installing LEDs. Answer choice (C) is simply not reasonably supported by the information in the passage. (We would have to bend over backwards in an effort to justify it.)
Meanwhile, answer choice (A), while not a definite outcome, makes sense from a financial and convenience perspective. To invoke an image,
difficult or costly to replace can be thought of to mean that no one would want to be up on a ladder risking life and limb to replace a light bulb, so it might be better to pay more for a bulb upfront and not have to change it as frequently.
Well done on the question. Thank you for thinking to bring me into the dialogue.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.