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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 07 Oct 2017, 03:34
9
42
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
65% (hard)
Question Stats:
55% (00:59) correct 45% (01:03) wrong based on 1746 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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
(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
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Jun 2008, 12:25
24
9
Tricky one, but I would pick A.
Quote:
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 (could be. Reasoning here: deposits on land depleted -> price of Uranium on the world market goes up -> obtaining uranium from seawater becomes viable even if the cost of extracting remains the same -> the conclusion is not true. Other option: deposits on land are not depleted -> price of Uranium stands still -> extracting uranium from seawater at current price is not viable -> the conclusion is true.)
b. Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined (not relevant)
c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater (This might seem as the answer, but I think it is not. Notice that we needn’t to know whether the cost of extracting of uranium from the seawater will go down. We have to verify the claim ‘Unless the cost goes down, this method won’t be viable’ – which is not the same. And the information about the promise of reducing cost doesn’t help us to verify the claim. Here we have only costs go down - > extracting from seawater may be viable. But we in fact need some info about the situation when the costs of extracting will NOT go down, BUT the obtaining uranium from seawater becomes profitable)
d. Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land (doesn’t help us either. Perhaps the amount of uranium on land, while less than in seawater, is still sufficient to satisfy the market demand)
e. Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater. (doesn’t help us since the argument considers only the issue of sea-water-extracted uranium)
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Jun 2008, 12:00
7
gmat blows wrote:
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 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.
----- I was able to narrow down to A, C, and D Ive convinced myself that 'technological advaces' to reduce cost was slighltly a shift of scope. now, between A and D. I feel that they are almost synonymous in meaning. It would be important to know whether the uranium is being depleted (if not, then extracting from seawater is not needed). However, doesnt D) somewhat imply the same thing? If there isnt alot of uranium in the seawater to begin with, then the even the reduction in cost would not be worth it?
Am i thinking too much about this? thanks.
Lets just compare A and D.
First D. it compares the total amount of Uranium in seawater and Land. lets just say amount of U in seawater is 1000 and on land its 100. But it doesnt talk about the usage. May its possible that whatever amount is available on land, it'll last forever and we may never need to take it out from seawater
Lets see A. As the U deposit on land is depleting fast, we may landup in a situation where we have to extract U from seawater, even if it costs more than mining on land.
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Jun 2008, 12:09
I'd slide towards C.
I belive we need to evaluate this argument (until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced...) by actually verifying the progress that has been made or by evaulating the efforts underway to reduce the cost. Hope it makes sense.
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Jun 2008, 12:20
C doesn't looks right to me since , we know that if the cost can be reduced than the seawater uranium could be of some help . So by c you will come to know that the technological advanced have been made or not...but how will you evaluate the argument on the basis of that...the argument already states that if somehow the cost can be reduced..which will be thru soe technological advances only.....
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Jun 2008, 12:24
Guys, I havent really started studying CR and this is the first time I've come across a question stem like the one mentioned here.
Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument? -- Does this mean weaken/undermine the argument in this question??
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Jun 2008, 13:29
1
definitely A. It would be economical to use seawater uranium extraction if either cost is reduced or price goes up. The argument states that the cost has to be reduced which is true only is price doesn't go up. Depletion of supply will definitely cause price to go up.
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jan 2012, 23:35
1
My answer is also A.
If I were a VC and need to start doing the business of extracting uranium from sea water, I will go with A because that is the shortest way to determine the success of my venture. Sure, C also helps, but it takes time. And the question is about 'most useful', hence A wins over C.
_________________
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jan 2012, 02:29
1
i"ll go with A... This Q is about evaluating the argument, If uranium in deposits on land is not rapidly being depleted, then y we should be bothered about technology advances and extracting uranium from seawater
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jan 2012, 03:21
riteshv wrote:
i"ll go with A... This Q is about evaluating the argument, If uranium in deposits on land is not rapidly being depleted, then y we should be bothered about technology advances and extracting uranium from seawater
I disagree with your reasoning...
the question is all about - should we need to extract uranium from seawater, what do we need to know. But your reasoning is like- should we need to extract uranium from seawater. There is a big difference.
_________________
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Jan 2012, 21:23
1
vksunder wrote:
Guys, I havent really started studying CR and this is the first time I've come across a question stem like the one mentioned here.
Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument? -- Does this mean weaken/undermine the argument in this question??
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Jul 2013, 02:24
i can't understand why A is the answer.. i would choose this option only in a "weaken question", but this is an "evaluation question"; my kaplan book says: "The correct answer won't strengthen or weaken the author's reasoning or supply a missing assumption. Instead, the right answer will specify the kind of evidence that you would help you to judge the validity of the author's argument" this is the reason why i'd chose C can someone helps me?
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Jul 2013, 02:54
5
1
lucasITA wrote:
i can't understand why A is the answer.. i would choose this option only in a "weaken question", but this is an "evaluation question"; my kaplan book says: "The correct answer won't strengthen or weaken the author's reasoning or supply a missing assumption. Instead, the right answer will specify the kind of evidence that you would help you to judge the validity of the author's argument" this is the reason why i'd chose C can someone helps me?
We want to evaluate this:
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 This is the correct answer. If the deposits on land are rapidly being depleted, the uranium's price is going to be higher so despite the high costs, the method of obtaining uranium will be commercially viable.
c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater I) show promise of reduce != will reduce II) determining the possible existence of such technologies does not help us in evaluating the argument (...) until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced (...) <== it has no effect on this
_________________
It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Sep 2013, 00:24
gmat blows wrote:
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 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.
From the list of options, I left myself with A and C. What made (A) not an answer for me was the face that the question asked about commercial viability. If uranium deposits on land deplete themselves, we will have to start extracting from seawater. This doesn't address costs at all, so I chose (C).
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Mar 2015, 05:53
Before everything, let's break down the prompt into pieces • Uranium mostly come from mines. An alternative source would be from seawater, but it is too costly. • Argument: Cost of extracting uranium from seawater should decrease to consider this option.
(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted - Correct answer. It is important to know whether mining uranium will still be a viable option or not. If it is rapidly depleting, obtaining uranium from seawater will be the ONLY viable option. If it is not rapidly depleting, then it is not a viable option. (B) Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined - This is irrelevant to the argument, as this does not address whether extracting uranium in seawater could be an option (C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater - This is future-driven. If there are technological advances that show promise of reducing the cost, it still does not make uranium extraction from seawater a viable option for now. (D) Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land - Irrelevant. What is important is the costly process of extraction, and not necessarily the total amount of uranium that can be extracted (E) Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater. - The question is whether it will be better to extract uranium in the mines or from seawater. And if it is too costly to extract from seawater, it would be efficient to extract from mines. This does not make extracting from seawater a viable option for now.
close
55% (00:59) correct 
