CR- URANIUM with a twist

Question

Folks I modified the question answer choices..and lets discuss what the OA should be..

Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?

a. Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
b. Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater relative to cost of mining uranium from land
d. Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
e. Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater.

incognito1 · Answer

I'll go with (C) -- clearly addresses the conclusion

Whats your OA?

FN · Answer

i too think its C..

i think this little piece of information i added to answer Choice C..should help us understand the original question..in the original question A is the OA..because C doesnt say anything about how much lower the cost got relative mining from land..

bsd_lover · Answer

A for me

"Until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable"
This conclusion could directly be attacked if A were true.

Everything else just doesn't directly link with this conclusion.

FN · Answer

yeah but C says hey what if cost of extracting uranium is actually lower than extracting U from land..

bsd_lover · Answer

Doesn't matter. Keyword is UNTIL ... if you can prove that the cost of uranium will increase (since the supply is depleted) then you dont have to wait UNTIL you find that technology innovation. C just restates the premise saying that yes .. a technology has been invented.

durgesh79 · Answer

I'd still go for A.

the aurgument is untill prices go down, i wont buy the products. Option C tells me, guys the are working to reduce the price... I'll say good to know it, but that wont change my coclusion ......

A tells me, that my inventory is going down, so I'll have to buy the product, no matter what it costs....

gmatnub · Answer

A

guarantee or your money back

sondenso · Answer

You say nearly exactly what I want to add here! If uranium is rare or in shortage, you have no choice that you must accept buy it even though it is very very expensive!

AlinderPatel · Answer

Doesnt D mean the same thing as A?

I picked D because I thought that it addressed both U in land and in seawater.

Can someone breakdown D for me...thanks!

devilmirror · Answer

No.

D and A do not mean the same thing.

Choice D) only tells you that Uranium in sea is more than Uranium on land. If people can still use Uranium on land, they will not bother look at the sea because the cost is too much.

Choice A) tells you that soon there will be only Uranium avaible in sea. This weaken the conclusion because people do not have wait until the cost comes down.

iamcartic · Answer

Conclusion here is that, Extracting cost should be reduced to make sea Uranium economically viable.....

Premisis: Price in the mkt is determining factor ......

Assumptions: 1. Extraction cost is the only detemining factor to make sea U economically viable
2. Price in the market would be stable in long term - meaning it will not increase.

Option A & D attack the assumption rather directly - but A is more apt in attacking the Assumption#2. Hence would vote for A!!

goalsnr · Answer

Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable

c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater relative to cost of mining uranium from land

huntgmat · Answer

P1 : supply of uranium - currently comes from the mines.
P2 : Cost Sea > Cost Mines
C : Until P2 -> Mines will be used for uranium.

In this case to break the conclusion we have to show OTHER reasons that can lead to the
extraction of uranium from sea.

For me, both A and C are valid for to suit as OTHER reason . But do not miss the question:
Which of the following would it be   most   useful .....

Consider A, if no uranium remains in mines you are forced to take it from sea .... whatever may be the case.
Consider C, even if sea becomes cheaper there can be other factors impacting the decision to extract from sea ....

A is more appropiate than C for this case.

Practicegmat · Answer

MARKED C ... but now I got why its A

thanks !

tuanquang269 · Answer

Between A and C, A will attack the conclusion if it true. How about choice C, there are technology advance SHOW promise .... is this fact affect the availability of extracting uranium from sea water. No, this is only the promise, still not utilizing. So, this is the incorrect choice. Nice trap.

CR- URANIUM with a twist

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards