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.
Jul 1206:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join our webinar to master GMAT RC Main Point Questions! Learn effective strategies to decipher passage themes and purposes. Senior Verbal Expert- Sunita Singhvi will equip you with tools to navigate complexities and avoid common traps set by the GMAT.
Jul 0901:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today.
Jul 1311:00 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Jul 1508:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jul 1611:00 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.
01 May 2022, 10:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi AndrewN
If the cost of oil increases, it will increase both for maintaining the old burner and the new burner. It is the quantity of oil that will be considerably less for the new burner. So the effective difference between these two expenses i.e "new cost x (old quantity - new quantity of oil)" should still remain the same. What am I missing in option E ?
There is no where mentioned in the question that existing plant uses more than 1 burner. In fact it says "cost savings between the total amount the asphalt plant actually paid for oil using its former burner " and I believe that should be sufficient to assume that there is no other burner. So if we go by option B, the use of 2 new burners would in turn reduce the amount of payment received as it would be calculated based on the oil used by just 1 old burner. What is wrong with option B ?
If the cost of oil increases, it will increase both for maintaining the old burner and the new burner. It is the quantity of oil that will be considerably less for the new burner. So the effective difference between these two expenses i.e "new cost x (old quantity - new quantity of oil)" should still remain the same. What am I missing in option E ?
There is no where mentioned in the question that existing plant uses more than 1 burner. In fact it says "cost savings between the total amount the asphalt plant actually paid for oil using its former burner " and I believe that should be sufficient to assume that there is no other burner. So if we go by option B, the use of 2 new burners would in turn reduce the amount of payment received as it would be calculated based on the oil used by just 1 old burner. What is wrong with option B ?
03 May 2022, 04:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
Namangupta1997
Hi AndrewN
If the cost of oil increases, it will increase both for maintaining the old burner and the new burner. It is the quantity of oil that will be considerably less for the new burner. So the effective difference between these two expenses i.e "new cost x (old quantity - new quantity of oil)" should still remain the same. What am I missing in option E ?
There is no where mentioned in the question that existing plant uses more than 1 burner. In fact it says "cost savings between the total amount the asphalt plant actually paid for oil using its former burner " and I believe that should be sufficient to assume that there is no other burner. So if we go by option B, the use of 2 new burners would in turn reduce the amount of payment received as it would be calculated based on the oil used by just 1 old burner. What is wrong with option B ?
Hello, Namangupta1997. Thank you for being patient while I have been on vacation. I think what you are missing in answer choice (E) is that the price of oil is said to steadily increase only after the new burner is installed, and soon after at that. This change in oil pricing at the exact time of the switchover to the new oil burner would only hurt the chances that the plan would be successful—i.e. lucrative—for Hotco.If the cost of oil increases, it will increase both for maintaining the old burner and the new burner. It is the quantity of oil that will be considerably less for the new burner. So the effective difference between these two expenses i.e "new cost x (old quantity - new quantity of oil)" should still remain the same. What am I missing in option E ?
There is no where mentioned in the question that existing plant uses more than 1 burner. In fact it says "cost savings between the total amount the asphalt plant actually paid for oil using its former burner " and I believe that should be sufficient to assume that there is no other burner. So if we go by option B, the use of 2 new burners would in turn reduce the amount of payment received as it would be calculated based on the oil used by just 1 old burner. What is wrong with option B ?
You raise an interesting point about the language used in the passage and in answer choice (B): will sell one and the subsequent reference to the Hotco burner from the passage can only reasonably be interpreted as a single burner, but then we see this new consideration involving multiple burners in the answer choices. I can see a few directions the discussion could take, but I have trouble justifying how Hotco would lose out by selling Clifton Asphalt multiple burners. Consider the following scenarios:
1) Only the first burner, the one mentioned in the opening line, is sold under the conditions provided in the passage: will sell one for no payment other than... Hotco could then sell an extra burner that was not subject to the conditions. This extra burner would have nothing to do with the plan itself.
2) Like the Tesla Solar Roof and its Powerwall integrated battery system, the Hotco oil burner might be efficient but have only so much capacity before a second unit would need to be purchased. Not only can we not assume that the second unit would be subject to the same terms of sale as the first, we also cannot assume that two more efficient units would require more oil to the point that even if the second burner was subject to the same terms of sale as the first, Hotco would lose out. Consider this: if the old burner had a capacity of, say, 5000 gallons, and used all that oil, and the new ones each have a capacity of 2000 gallons (since they are more efficient), the net reduction of 1000 gallons would still be substantial. (It does not take a Bunuel to appreciate the 20 percent decrease.) Depending on the price of oil—note the language in paid for oil versus will pay for oil that lies at the heart of the plan—this could still be a winning proposition for Hotco. There is, at least, no way to lean on anything but an assumption that Hotco could be making a bad deal in seeing through its plan.
Answer choice (B) ultimately does not hold up to scrutiny, so we have to abandon it. Perhaps the question makes more sense now. Thank you for thinking to ask, and again, thank you for your patience while awaiting my response.
- Andrew
03 May 2022, 04:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
AndrewN
Namangupta1997
Hi AndrewN
If the cost of oil increases, it will increase both for maintaining the old burner and the new burner. It is the quantity of oil that will be considerably less for the new burner. So the effective difference between these two expenses i.e "new cost x (old quantity - new quantity of oil)" should still remain the same. What am I missing in option E ?
There is no where mentioned in the question that existing plant uses more than 1 burner. In fact it says "cost savings between the total amount the asphalt plant actually paid for oil using its former burner " and I believe that should be sufficient to assume that there is no other burner. So if we go by option B, the use of 2 new burners would in turn reduce the amount of payment received as it would be calculated based on the oil used by just 1 old burner. What is wrong with option B ?
Hello, Namangupta1997. Thank you for being patient while I have been on vacation. I think what you are missing in answer choice (E) is that the price of oil is said to steadily increase only after the new burner is installed, and soon after at that. This change in oil pricing at the exact time of the switchover to the new oil burner would only hurt the chances that the plan would be successful—i.e. lucrative—for Hotco.If the cost of oil increases, it will increase both for maintaining the old burner and the new burner. It is the quantity of oil that will be considerably less for the new burner. So the effective difference between these two expenses i.e "new cost x (old quantity - new quantity of oil)" should still remain the same. What am I missing in option E ?
There is no where mentioned in the question that existing plant uses more than 1 burner. In fact it says "cost savings between the total amount the asphalt plant actually paid for oil using its former burner " and I believe that should be sufficient to assume that there is no other burner. So if we go by option B, the use of 2 new burners would in turn reduce the amount of payment received as it would be calculated based on the oil used by just 1 old burner. What is wrong with option B ?
You raise an interesting point about the language used in the passage and in answer choice (B): will sell one and the subsequent reference to the Hotco burner from the passage can only reasonably be interpreted as a single burner, but then we see this new consideration involving multiple burners in the answer choices. I can see a few directions the discussion could take, but I have trouble justifying how Hotco would lose out by selling Clifton Asphalt multiple burners. Consider the following scenarios:
1) Only the first burner, the one mentioned in the opening line, is sold under the conditions provided in the passage: will sell one for no payment other than... Hotco could then sell an extra burner that was not subject to the conditions. This extra burner would have nothing to do with the plan itself.
2) Like the Tesla Solar Roof and its Powerwall integrated battery system, the Hotco oil burner might be efficient but have only so much capacity before a second unit would need to be purchased. Not only can we not assume that the second unit would be subject to the same terms of sale as the first, we also cannot assume that two more efficient units would require more oil to the point that even if the second burner was subject to the same terms of sale as the first, Hotco would lose out. Consider this: if the old burner had a capacity of, say, 5000 gallons, and used all that oil, and the new ones each have a capacity of 2000 gallons (since they are more efficient), the net reduction of 1000 gallons would still be substantial. (It does not take a Bunuel to appreciate the 20 percent decrease.) Depending on the price of oil—note the language in paid for oil versus will pay for oil that lies at the heart of the plan—this could still be a winning proposition for Hotco. There is, at least, no way to lean on anything but an assumption that Hotco could be making a bad deal in seeing through its plan.
Answer choice (B) ultimately does not hold up to scrutiny, so we have to abandon it. Perhaps the question makes more sense now. Thank you for thinking to ask, and again, thank you for your patience while awaiting my response.
- Andrew
Hi AndrewN
Thanks a lot for your explanation. Option E is clear now.
Regarding option B, I agree that we have go as far as to make some crude assumptions to conclude that Hocto would DEFINITELY make a loss. But consider this :
Deal 1 : 1 new burner for 1 old existing burner. Profit earned by Hocto is simply the difference in the amount of the oil used by them.
Deal 2 : 2 new burners (the other burner exactly the same as used in Deal 1) for 1 old burner (performing exactly the same as it did in Deal 1). Profit earned by Hocto here is decreased as Hocto has spent money to install 2 burners. The return Hocto is getting is still based on just the one burner, which, since having the same performance, would need the same amount of oil.
Sure we can argue that Hocto is still making profit in both the arrangements, but if we compare them side by side, Deal 1 is just MORE profitable.
Does this all make any sense?
