During the earliest period of industrialization in Britain, steam engi

How does the line highlighted above bodes with the OA??

People were building the Steam Factories even though they could build successfully a wind/water factory at that spot..

Hi,
The connection between the OA and your highlight is the excess demand for the factory-made good. So even at sites conducive for wind/water powered factory, steam factories still needed to be erected to service the excess demand, especially in the major markets.

Hope this is clear.

Best,

I think I should elaborate my question..

Universal Fact: On one piece of land, we can construct only one kind of factory - Wind/Water power or Steam Powered.
Premise 1: Steam Powered Factories were built in large numbers even though they were more expensive to construct and operate.
Premise 2: Steam Powered Factories were built Even on the land on which Wind/Water Powered factories could be constructed.

Now, nowhere in these premises is it given that steam powered factories could produce more goods than the other types. The only benefit that steam powered ones had was that those factories could be manufactured anywhere irrespective of their closeness to the source of power. However, this does not explains why steam factories were constructed even on the land where a cheaper Wind/Water factory could be constructed. Repeating Again - OA does not Clarify why Steam powered factories Replaced Wind/Water Powered factories..

I am facing difficulty understanding how OA resolves the paradox and following are my issues in it..

Universal Fact:On one piece of land, we can construct only one kind of factory - Wind/Water power or Steam Powered.
Premise 1: Steam Powered Factories were built in large numbers even though they were more expensive to construct and operate.
Premise 2: Steam Powered Factories were built Even on the land on which Wind/Water Powered factories could be constructed.

Now, nowhere in these premises is it given that steam powered factories could produce more goods than the other types. The only benefit that steam powered ones had was that those factories could be manufactured anywhere irrespective of their closeness to the source of power. However, this does not explains why steam factories were constructed even on the land where a cheaper Wind/Water factory could be constructed. Repeating Again - OA does not Clarify why Steam powered factories Replaced Wind/Water Powered factories..

Hi,

This is the prompt:

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the proliferation of steam-powered factories during the earliest period of industrialization in Britain?

The main paradox is that steam-powered factories proliferated in spite of being relatively expensive and the minor one is that they did so even where there are better alternatives.

This is what the OA says:
E) In Britain, the number of sites where the wind or water-powered factory could be built was insufficient to provide for all of the demand for factory-produced goods at the time.

Now you are right, nowhere in these premises is it given that steam powered factories could produce more goods than the other types. However, excess demand would encourage the building of steam powered factories in addition to wind/water factories in areas where wind/water are optimum.

You are also right to point the major advantage of steam powered factories - anywhere irrespective of their closeness to the source of power. This benefit primarily resolved your number 1 premise stated above i.e they were built in spite of being expensive.

In fact, one could equally say building steam factories in optimum locations for the alternative is just a subset of them being expensive, however, a combination of being able to build them without geographical constraint and the need for more goods anyway should be enough to resolve that conundrum.

Finally, remember that CR questions, while convoluted sometimes, are crafted to be solved under 2 minutes. Therefore I will suggest you shouldn't over think OAs as they aren't necessarily comprehensive, they are sometimes just the best among the 5 options. This is reflected in the prompt which asked for the statement that, If true, most helps to explain the proliferation of steam-powered factories[/b] during the earliest period of industrialization in Britain? And option E is just better, overall, than the others. If you think otherwise, I am curious to know your answer.

Also, keep in mind that one can come up with a myriad of other reasons why steam power proliferated after all that was a historical truth. However, only one of limited scope would be in a GMAT CR option. Think about a CR question as an abbreviated RC.

I commend your efforts to get to the root of the problem and I hope I am a clearer in my explanation.

Best,
Rulingbear

Thanks for a patient and detailed reply. As it turns out, I did notice this flaw/weakness in my thought and did note it down in my notes but because it has been a few weeks since I revised those notes, I forgot it.

Here is the exact text as I noted - Though Partial Explanation is not the Best Answer in Easy Questions, it may be the answer IF every other option is Out of Scope - and it fits here perfectly.

i might sound dumb but i have a doubt. So here in Option C which i initially marked to be the answer it says that the conversion of the wind and the water mills are expensive and a difficult process. So i marked this as the answer because i thought since its conversion is expensive so it is better to built the steam mills at the first. why is this thought process not right ??

Not a dumb question at all!

At the time, steam engines were more expensive to build and operate than either windmills or water mills, and steam-powered factories had significant cost disadvantages. Sure, if factory builders could see the future and predict that technological improvements would eventually make steam-powered factories more economical to operate, then perhaps those risk-taking individuals would have built steam-powered factories despite their current cost-disadvantages.

But would that explain the proliferation of steam-powered factories during the earliest period of industrialization? Steam-engines are CURRENTLY expensive to build. So even if technological improvements reduce the build cost, someone who built a steam factory in the earliest period would probably not benefit at all from that cost reduction (they've already pay for their steam engines).

Operating costs might eventually go down, but will that make up for the all of the costs of A) building a more expensive factory and B) operating the factory with more-expensive steam-power until steam becomes the cheaper option (an unknown length of time)? Even if steam eventually becomes much cheaper, it might be impossible to recoup all of those losses.

(C) might explain why some factory builders chose steam. However, in order for (C) to explain the proliferation, we'd have to assume that MANY factory builders were willing to make that gamble and invest tons of money in a more-expensive technology.

(E) is a much better answer.

Question Type - Explain the discrepancy/Resolve the paradox

Premise 1: Steam engines were more expensive to build & operate as compared to other prevalent sources of power for industrial production.

Premise 2: Steam engines were built in large numbers despite being expensive, Steam engines were built in locations where water & wind is abundant for wind mills or water powered factories.

Analysis: The cost to benefit advantages of having a steam powered factory out weigh the cost. This could be either there is anticipation that wind & water power is going to get more expensive in near future & as a means of preparation for future, steam powered factories are being built. Another reason could be anticipation of future demand or the current demand that is fulfilled by wind or water powered factories is insufficient.


A) In many areas of Britain, there were fewer steam-powered factories than wind- or water-powered factories in the earliest period of industrialization. - Provides additional information but doesn't help to explain the contradiction in the premises. Incorrect
B) Unlike wind- or water-powered factories, steam-powered factories were fueled with coal, which sometimes had to be transported significant distances from the mine to the site of the factory. Same as A. Incorrect
C) It was both difficult and expensive to convert a factory from wind power or water power to steam power. There is no mention of conversion. The steam powered factories are built new & not converted from wind powered or water powered factories. Incorrect
D) In the early period of industrialization, many goods sold in towns and cities could not be mass-produced in factories. Could be true but is out of context for our discussion. Incorrect.
E) In Britain, the number of sites where a wind or water-powered factory could be built was insufficient to provide for all of the demand for factory-produced goods at the time. There isn't enough power available to meet the demand & hence steam factories were built in large numbers despite their high cost. Correct.

Dear VeritasKarishma DmitryFarber AjiteshArun GMATNinja,

Going through the above explanations, I still don't understand how choice E. addresses the paradox in the last sentence in the passage:

The last sentence in the passage: Furthermore, they were built even in regions where geographical conditions permitted the construction of wind- and water-powered factories close to major markets.

Choice E. : In Britain, the number of sites where a wind or water-powered factory could be built was insufficient to provide for all of the demand for factory-produced goods at the time.

Q1. Choice E. indicates that the land is limited and precious. In light of choice E., why were those steam-powered factories not built somewhere else? Why they needed to be built in regions where geographical conditions permitted the construction of wind- and water-powered factories? In other words, why does steam-powered factories were built on the very same land on which wind- and water-powered factories could be built? Why building a MORE expensive factory on that precious land! This even accentuates the paradox.

Q2. Do we need to assume that steam-powered factories are more efficient and can produce much more goods than wind- and water-powered factories?
Note that neither the passage nor choice E has even mentioned the efficiency of steam-powered factories.

Q3. How does choice E. presents a unique ADVANTAGE of building steam-powered factories on the land on which wind- and water-powered factories could be built?


Please help resolve the paradox!

Hi varotkorn,

Before we take a look at why E is correct, we should be absolutely sure that we are willing to accept any option as the answer to this question, no matter how "weak" it is, as long as it is better than the other options. That said, what are we looking to explain?

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the proliferation of steam-powered factories during the earliest period of industrialization in Britain?

That's what we'll focus on.

During the earliest period of industrialization in Britain, steam engines were more expensive to build and operate than either windmills or water mills, the other practicable sources of power for factories. Yet despite their significant cost disadvantages, steam-powered factories were built in large numbers well before technical improvements brought their cost down.

The furthermore... is not as important as the rest of the question.

A. This just tells us that S < W. It doesn't tell us anything about why steam-powered factories were built though, given the cost disadvantage (in comparison with W) involved in building them.

B. Something that S needs was hard to transport (sometimes). This is a reason not to choose S.

C. It's hard to switch to S. This is a reason not to choose S.

D. Many products could not be produced in factories. If anything, this weakens the case for mass production in general.

E. The number of sites for W was limited. That means that even if people wanted to go for W, they couldn't. This gives us a reason to choose S, because the alternative, given the lack of any other information, is to not build a factory at all and therefore let any additional demand go unmet.

Dear AjiteshArun,

I thought the last sentence is where the paradox (the proliferation of S) of the passage lies: building S on the land that can be built W.
That's why I think choice E. does not address what is stated in the supposed paradox at all.

By the way, here is my theory:
I think REGIONS are larger than SITES? Therefore, although REGIONS (according to the last sentence) have geographical conditions that permitted building W, SITES (according to choice E.) may not or may not permit doing so.
Is this the correct thinking?

Thank you Sir!

Hi varotkorn,

It's great to see how closely you analyze the questions that you practice! In this case though, I don't think that the regions/sites split comes into play.

The proliferation most closely matches were built in large numbers. The furthermore, they were built even in regions bit seems to me to be mostly inconsequential, given (a) what the question eventually asks us to do and (b) that it seems to apply to a relatively small number of cases ("seems" because there's no way to be sure).

It'd be great to get more opinions on this, as I may have missed something in the last sentence, but it really does seem to me to be something that extends the main message (it doesn't seem to itself be the main message).

Solution
Passage analysis         
During the earliest period of industrialization in Britain, steam engines were more expensive to build and operate than either windmills or water mills, the other practicable sources of power for factories.

• This is at the time of the beginning of industrialization in Britain.
• It was costly to build and to use steam engines.
• Windmills or water mills were cheaper on both counts.
• These were the only other feasible sources of energy for factories.

Yet despite their significant cost disadvantage, steam-powered factories were built in large numbers well before technical improvements brought their cost down.

• So, factories run on steam power were costlier to build and run.
• In spite of that, such factories were constructed in large numbers.
• (It was not until much later that technological advancements made it possible to build steam-powered factories at lower costs).

 Furthermore, they were built even in regions where geographical conditions permitted the construction of wind- and water-powered factories close to major markets.

• Not only were steam powered factories built in large numbers, they were built in areas where it was possible to build wind/water powered factories.
• These areas were geographically suited to wind/water powered factories.
• Moreover these areas were also located near major markets.

Prethinking
Thought process

We know:

• Steam and wind/water power the only two practicable sources of power for factories
• Steam powered factories costlier to build and operate than wind/water powered factories.
• In spite of that, a large number of steam powered factories built at high costs.
• Not only were they built at high costs, but they were also built in areas where geographical conditions and proximity to major markets permitted the setting up of wind/water power factories.

Why set up steam powered factories instead, given their cost disadvantage?

People were setting up Steam Factories even though they could successfully set up a wind/water powered factory at that spot.

This is the paradox in the passage that we have to resolve. We need to know if there was/were some significant advantage/s to setting up the steam powered factories that were absent in wind/water powered factories.

Firstly, factories are centers of mass production. It is possible that wind/water powered factories were incapable of producing goods on a scale that would satisfy the market demand in the areas they were proposed to be set up. So even at sites conducive for wind/water powered factories, steam factories that were capable of mass- production of those goods, still needed to be set up to service the excess demand, especially in the major markets. 

Secondly, those were the times of rapid development. It is possible that the government offered significantly huge subsidies and tax benefits to entrepreneurs who set up steam powered factories which would further the economic development of the Britain. These subsidies more than compensated for the cost disadvantage of steam powered factories.

This could explain why steam powered factories were favored over wind/water powered ones.

Answer Choice Analysis

A
Given their cost-disadvantage, it was to be expected that steam -powered factories would be fewer in numbers. This does not explain why they were then set up in large numbers.

Thus, this is not the correct answer choice.

B
This gives another reason why steam-powered factories should not have been built in large numbers in locations where it would be difficult to procure coal. This intensifies the paradox rather than solving it.

Thus, this is not the correct choice.

C
The passage does not deal with “converted” or “convertible” factories. The argument is about the setting up of new steam powered factories over the choice of wind/water powered ones. It does not explain the paradox.

Thus, this is not the correct answer choice.

D
If the goods could not be mass-produced in factories, then why set up factories of any kind. Moreover “many” is a huge range and could mean as little as >2 to as much as “all”. This option is irrelevant to the discussion.

Thus, this is not the correct choice.

E
This is along the lines set out in our first explanation in pre-thinking.

Thus, this is the correct choice.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.