It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 01:02

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Posts: 129

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 24

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2012, 07:16
C
good question

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 24

Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 226

Kudos [?]: 292 [1], given: 7

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2012, 11:54
1
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
153. Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into
electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power
(that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more
economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.
Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has
not decreased its threshold of economic viability?
(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs
for that equipment.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically
viable

_________________

The Best Way to Keep me ON is to give Me KUDOS !!!
If you Like My posts please Consider giving Kudos

Shikhar

Kudos [?]: 292 [1], given: 7

Manager
Status: I will be back!
Joined: 13 Feb 2012
Posts: 67

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 38

Location: India
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2012, 00:21
shikhar wrote:
153. Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into
electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power
(that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more
economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.
Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has
not decreased its threshold of economic viability?
(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs
for that equipment.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically
viable

Check this:
http://gmatclub.com/forum/technological-improvements-and-reduced-equipment-66673.html#p489267

_________________

Gmat FlashCard For Anki

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 38

Manager
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 115

Kudos [?]: 149 [0], given: 15

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 600 Q49 V23
GPA: 3.8
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2012, 05:01
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more
economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.

Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power hasnot decreased its threshold of economic viability?

A. The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
B. The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costsfor that equipment.
C. Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
D. Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
E. When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economicallyviable.

Can someone explain this one...?

Kudos [?]: 149 [0], given: 15

Intern
Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 51

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2012, 02:58

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 51

Intern
Joined: 24 Apr 2012
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2012, 06:16
Its a cause effect CR. Its assumed that the improvement in efficiency of solar power conversion to electricity will have an effect that threshhold price for oil decreases. If we reverse the relation we should be fine to explain the paradox. Hence C.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 26 [1], given: 10

Concentration: Finance, Technology
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2012, 12:22
1
KUDOS
Simplest explanation for A vs C:

Comparing cost per unit in both cases:

Case 1: Initially, cost of solar power per unit will be equal when price to which oil should rise = \$35. So for 1 unit, lets say,

(cost of solar power) C1 = \$35 (cost of oil equalized) + P1 (cost of production)

Case 2: even with new technology

(cost of solar power) C2 = \$35 (cost of oil equalized) + P2 (cost of production)

Since cost of solar power has decreased, C2 < C1
hence P2 < P1
which means efficiency of production for oil plants has increased.

Even I selected the wrong one before

Its my first post... Kudos plz

Kudos [?]: 26 [1], given: 10

Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Posts: 35

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2012, 12:44
IMO the option A talks about the sudden fall in the cost of oil , while the argument talks about the cost efficiency of solar energy in comparison for a longer duration.So option A is wrong as it takes into account the sudden fall and does not compare the prices for a longer perspective.
C takes into consideration that the changes have taken place gradually.

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 137

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 16

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 590 Q28 V38
GPA: 2.54
WE: Accounting (Hospitality and Tourism)
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2012, 19:03
I take it as while the efficiency of oil powered power plants has increased while solar power has not is because it provides an answer to how both sides of the argument can be factually correct.
_________________

4/28 GMATPrep 42Q 36V 640

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 16

Intern
Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: 2 [1], given: 1

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2012, 05:36
1
KUDOS
∆C unit= 1/E( Csolar - n*Cbarrel )

n = number of barrels used to generate E units of energy
Csolar = Cost to generate E units of Solar Power
Cbarrel = Cost of a barrel
∆C = Difference in costs between generation of solar power and generation of thermal power

for solar power to be economically viable
∆C unit = 0
Then Csolar = n*Cbarrel
Question says that although Csolar↓ ,But Cbarrel is still = \$35, which means n has to come down. n is inversely proportional to efficiency.

Therefore, C

Kudos [?]: 2 [1], given: 1

Director
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 868

Kudos [?]: 1416 [0], given: 543

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2013, 06:23
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more
economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.
Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has
not decreased its threshold of economic viability?
(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs
for that equipment.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically
viable.
_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

Kudos [?]: 1416 [0], given: 543

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 286

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2013, 11:11
fozzzy wrote:
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more
economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.
Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has
not decreased its threshold of economic viability?
(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs
for that equipment.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically
viable.

Have to choose between A & C. But, not sure how to prove which one is better or wrong is tough.
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 75

Director
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 868

Kudos [?]: 1416 [0], given: 543

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2013, 03:06
greatps24 wrote:

Have to choose between A & C. But, not sure how to prove which one is better or wrong is tough.

This is a pretty tough resolve the paradox question from what usually appears.
_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

Kudos [?]: 1416 [0], given: 543

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 96

Kudos [?]: 120 [0], given: 62

Location: India
GMAT Date: 10-25-2012
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2013, 04:22
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more
economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.
Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has not decreased its threshold of economic viability?

Economic viability = EV = threshold/difference between cost effectiveness of new solar power plants and new oil-fired power plants
tech improvements have made solar power plants more efficient. still, EV is unchanged at \$35.

(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically. the argument compares EV only between new solar power plants and new oil-fired power plants and not old oil-fired power plants. but dramatic cost reduction in oil will lead to cost efficiency of old oil based power plants as well.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs for that equipment. does not explains why EV has not changed. In fact, supports the fact that it should have changed.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants. correct - tech improvements increased the efficiency of both new solar power plants and new oil-fired power plants. Good enough reason for EV to be unchanged
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants. irrelevant
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable does not explains why EV has not changed
.
_________________

if my post helped you, let me know by pressing Kudos...

Kudos [?]: 120 [0], given: 62

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2311

Kudos [?]: 9067 [2], given: 335

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2013, 05:17
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
fozzzy wrote:
greatps24 wrote:

Have to choose between A & C. But, not sure how to prove which one is better or wrong is tough.

This is a pretty tough resolve the paradox question from what usually appears.

Let's use numbers to understand what's happening in the passage:

Suppose, it used to cost \$2 to produce one unit of energy from Solar power plants
We are given that price per barrel has to be minimum \$35 for solar energy to be economically viable. What does economically viable means? It means that the cost of production of energy from solar power plant is not greater than the cost from oil run power plants.

So, at threshold level, cost per unit of energy from solar power plant = cost per unit of energy from oil power plant

Now, we are given that this threshold level is at oil price of \$35 per barrel.

So, a barrel of oil should produce 17.5 units of energy (so that the cost is \$2 per unit).

Now, coming to today,
Solar power sources have become very efficient. Therefore, let's suppose the cost of solar energy today is \$1 per unit.

However, we are given that the threshold price level of barrel of oil is same i.e. \$35.

This means that the same barrel oil must produce 35 units of energy for the costs of both solar energy and oil energy to remain same.

This means that the efficiency of oil power plants must have increased in same proportion as that of solar power plants.

Therefore, Option C is correct.

For completion sake, let's also look at option A. It says that the cost of oil has fallen - First of all, we are not concerned about cost of oil; we are concerned about price of oil to the power plants. Even if we say that the cost here refers to the price paid by the power plants, it is still irrelevant because when we are talking of a threshold price level of oil, we are referring to a hypothetical level below which solar energy would not be viable. We are not talking about actual price level; just as we are not talking about whether solar energy is economically viable in reality or not. We are just talking of conditions that are needed to make it economically viable.

I think this is pretty tough.

Let me know if some further clarification is required.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Kudos [?]: 9067 [2], given: 335

Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Posts: 109

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 19

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2013, 09:55
I would better guess and move on , then spend so much time on a question with the approach mentioned above . Not practical solution to eliminate A .

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 19

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7677

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Location: Pune, India
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2013, 20:40
ishancrazee wrote:
I would better guess and move on , then spend so much time on a question with the approach mentioned above . Not practical solution to eliminate A .

Actually, you don't have to take numbers and analyze them to eliminate (A). Most probably, people who have explained why (A) doesn't work using numbers, didn't actually take numbers when they were looking for the answer themselves. You simply have to understand that the "threshold of economic viability" has nothing to do with the actual cost of oil. It depends on the difference between 'cost to create solar power' vs 'cost of convert oil to power'. The numbers have been taken to explain the perspective.
And as for guessing, this is a GMAT prep 700+ level question. At that level, all questions are a little tricky and make you think. You might need to take these questions seriously if you are aiming for 700+.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 19

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2013, 22:38
Answer is option C as the author compares new solar plant with the new oil fired plants. C provides the most logical explanation.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 19

Current Student
Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 306

Kudos [?]: 474 [0], given: 142

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 2: 770 Q50 V47
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 May 2013, 20:44
Of whatever reasons, I would not agree that we can prove A to be incorrect by putting numbers.

I eliminated A because it is too negative. The word "dramatically" means unexpected or sudden change. It is not practical to say "The cost of oil has fallen dramatically in the last decade". A decade is a longer period of time to say dramatic increase or decrease.

Threshold = Cost of Solar - Cost Of Oil (Assume Profit is same in both the cases)
T = S - O

Now since my T is constant, S and O should either increase or decrease together to same extent.
As per the premise, S has become "far more cost-efficient in the last decade", it doesn't use any strong word like "dramatically" , "extraordinarily" , "unexpectedly" etc, So O should keep pace with S.

In such case, C sounds a better option, as the reason for cost-efficiency is common.
A could be correct, had it been simply "The cost of oil has fallen"
_________________

"Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well."
― Voltaire

Press Kudos, if I have helped.
Thanks!

Kudos [?]: 474 [0], given: 142

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7677

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Location: Pune, India
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2013, 03:04
ConnectTheDots wrote:
Of whatever reasons, I would not agree that we can prove A to be incorrect by putting numbers.

I eliminated A because it is too negative. The word "dramatically" means unexpected or sudden change. It is not practical to say "The cost of oil has fallen dramatically in the last decade". A decade is a longer period of time to say dramatic increase or decrease.

Threshold = Cost of Solar - Cost Of Oil (Assume Profit is same in both the cases)
T = S - O

Now since my T is constant, S and O should either increase or decrease together to same extent.
As per the premise, S has become "far more cost-efficient in the last decade", it doesn't use any strong word like "dramatically" , "extraordinarily" , "unexpectedly" etc, So O should keep pace with S.

In such case, C sounds a better option, as the reason for cost-efficiency is common.
A could be correct, had it been simply "The cost of oil has fallen"

Actually, ignoring an option because it is too 'extreme' is not the right approach. An option, even with 'never', 'all' etc could be true. It's all about the context. Usually, the contexts used in CR questions are real life and there are few absolutes in life hence, you might have heard that extreme answers are not correct. It is just a rule of thumb and may not always hold.

As for this option being extreme due to the presence of 'dramatic', I don't see how that word is a problem. If we are talking about multiple decades, oil price falling dramatically over the last decade could make sense. Say, if it is \$100 a barrel for many decades and then falls to \$50 a barrel over the last decade.

(A) is incorrect because the actual cost of oil is immaterial.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have   [#permalink] 03 Jun 2013, 03:04

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 80 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by