GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Aug 2018, 09:39

Close

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
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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have

  post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 289
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2016, 05:32
dear experts and mikemcgarry

this question does confused me a lot. :?:

at first, I want to make sure whether my interpretation is correct.
from the prompt,
1/ technology improved, and reduced cost, then the efficiency of solar energy is improved.
2/ the threshold of solar energy = 35, unchanged, doesn't matter others change or not
3/ 35 = the target price of oil , no matter what the original price is, it will raised to 35 eventually.
4/ the increase of oil is to make solar energy more economical

honestly, I am not clear about the logic of the prompt.

next, the stem is want us to find one that can explain why cost-efficiency of solar power, but the threshold of solar power is the same as before.

I read the whole topic, but I am still mess what the clue of this CR.
I haven't gotten why increase in efficiency of oil will explain.

genuinely want your correct my interpretation and relationship between increased efficiency of oil and the unchanged threshold.

please ~~~~

have a nice holiday.
>_~
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Status: preparing
Joined: 30 Dec 2013
Posts: 41
Location: United Arab Emirates
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 640 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 640 Q49 V28
GMAT 4: 640 Q49 V28
GMAT 5: 640 Q49 V28
GPA: 2.84
WE: General Management (Consumer Products)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2017, 01:01
rohansherry 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.

OA:C...pls explain the meaning of the sentence,



Answer is C.

But A is a close option.

My reason to kill A:

There are two things that make A less effective
1) The technology improvements and reduced equipment costs : as much lower for oil plants as they lower for solar plants. however, the solar energy has only one cost i.e. equipment/plant (sunlight is free)
2) Economic viability ( the words in bracket clearly say that oil prices will change ) : we need to know the constant costs which are the equipment or oil plant costs. The oil power generation has 2 costs a) oil b) equipment. Oil prices may go up or down, therefore the other factor must play the role.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 17 May 2016
Posts: 30
GMAT 1: 740 Q46 V46
Reviews Badge
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jan 2017, 07:29
Hi All,

I have read all the explanations and still not convinced that A is wrong, or maybe I do not understand the underlying approach.

Could you please explain what is wrong with this approach ?

Firstly, I assume the following :

Price of Solar Electricity = Price of Sun + Costs of Transformation Sun

Price of Oil-Fired Electricity = Price of Oil + Costs of Transformation Oil



From the Stem :

\(Price of Oil + 35 + Transformation Oil = Price of Sun + Transformation Sun\)

\(Price of Oil + Transformation Oil - Transformation Sun = Price of Sun + 35\)

\(Price of Oil + Transformation Oil - Transformation Sun = 35\) — Since the Sun is free, Price of Sun = 0

\((Price of Oil + Transformation Oil) - Transformation Sun[/color] = 35\)

However, after the reductions in Costs of the Transformation of sunlight to electricity, the equality has not changed — PARADOXE

\((Price of Oil + Transformation Oil) - Transformation Sun = 35\)

So now we have two possibilities :

Price of Oil has decreased (Answer A) or Costs of Transformation have decreased (Answer C)

At this exact moment, you're stuck in an endless trap
HEC Thread Master
avatar
B
Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 91
Location: Malawi
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Schools: Tuck '20 (S)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Non-Profit and Government)
Reviews Badge
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Apr 2017, 12:50
1
nickimonckom wrote:
Hi All,

I have read all the explanations and still not convinced that A is wrong, or maybe I do not understand the underlying approach.

Could you please explain what is wrong with this approach ?

Firstly, I assume the following :

Price of Solar Electricity = Price of Sun + Costs of Transformation Sun

Price of Oil-Fired Electricity = Price of Oil + Costs of Transformation Oil



From the Stem :

\(Price of Oil + 35 + Transformation Oil = Price of Sun + Transformation Sun\)

\(Price of Oil + Transformation Oil - Transformation Sun = Price of Sun + 35\)

\(Price of Oil + Transformation Oil - Transformation Sun = 35\) — Since the Sun is free, Price of Sun = 0

\((Price of Oil + Transformation Oil) - Transformation Sun[/color] = 35\)

However, after the reductions in Costs of the Transformation of sunlight to electricity, the equality has not changed — PARADOXE

\((Price of Oil + Transformation Oil) - Transformation Sun = 35\)

So now we have two possibilities :

Price of Oil has decreased (Answer A) or Costs of Transformation have decreased (Answer C)

At this exact moment, you're stuck in an endless trap


Hi - Here's my 2 cents.

Point of economic viability is the point at which Cost of producing one unit of energy through Solar is equal to Cost of producing one unit of energy through Oil.
c_solar = c_OilBarrel + c_Processing.

Now, before efficiency improvements in solar energy production, our equation was -
c_solarBefore = 35 + c_ProcessingBefore
And after efficiency improvements in solar energy production, our equation has become -
c_solarAfter = 35 +c_ProcessingAfter.

The argument states that c_OilBarrel hasn't changed from 35 - The price of oil barrel at which energy via solar would be economically viable as compared to energy via oil. But, it does state that c_solarAfter is less than c_solarBefore. In such a case, the only way the equation can still hold is if c_ProcessingAfter decreases from c_ProcessingBefore.

You can see that economic viability actually DOES NOT take into account current oil prices.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Aug 2015
Posts: 82
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Technology
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.39
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2017, 01:02
1
Since the efficiency of the solar power plants has increased making the solar energy far more cost-efficient, the economic viability of solar power should have decreased from $35 which apparently hasn’t. This could be because the efficiency of the oil-fired power plants might also have increased by a similar magnitude.

A) The cost of the oil has fallen dramatically; it’s a good start. But as nothing has been mentioned about the efficiency of the oil-fired power plants, we can assume that the efficiency is where it was. So, it will take the fire plant same volume of oil to produce a unit of electricity. Now, there are multiple components involved in producing electricity of which price of the oil is a part. Assuming all the other components remain the same, it makes although viable but not a very strong point that the price of oil single-handedly brought down the price of producing electricity from oil-fired plants to match up to the positive consequences of technological advancements cast upon the solar power plants. In case there’s no stronger option, we will select this option.

B) This doesn’t address anything about the oil.

C) Since the efficiency of the oil-fired power plants has also increased, there’s a fair possibility that the technological advances in the solar power sector couldn’t take the solar power production to a vantage point with respect to oil-fired power plants. This point is strong compared to option A as it addresses the entire system rather than a single component of the system.

D) Deviating from the path.

E) Can’t figure out how it is connected to the problem.

Thus, option C.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Mar 2017
Posts: 45
Schools: Stanford '20 (D)
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 May 2017, 12:35
Let P be the TARGET PRICE of an oil barrel. P=35
Now, I think some people confuse the term TARGET PRICE and think the price should rise in 35$ from whatever price it is now, if that was true A could be correct because if the price needs to go up by 35$ before and now as well, regardless the fact SOLAR became more efficient (=cheaper) then it could be explained by oil price decrease.

HOWEVER, as I said this is a TARGET PRICE of a barrel, this target price has nothing to do with how much oil cost, let oil be completely free because Donald Trump made a deal with the Saudis, it still need to cost 35 for the SOLAR to electricity process be cheaper. How comes? because processing oil into electricity became cheaper for example.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Mar 2017
Posts: 15
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2017, 12:17
MICKEYXITIN wrote:
noboru wrote:
boeinz wrote:
How to kill 'A'?


Same here.
I agree with C; but A is also correct.
Could anybody clarify?

A is incorrect because the premise also said that the the price per oil barrel is unchanged (=$35). We cannot change the premise of the argument. A is counter-fact in saying that oil price has fallen.



But it says, the price per barrel has to go up by $35 dollar to make Solar power more economical.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Posts: 338
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.81
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2017, 22:17
rohansherry 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.

OA:C...pls explain the meaning of the sentence,


I see a lot of quantitative mumbo-jumbo thrown out here to explain things. Looking at these explanations, I tend to ponder whether CR is testing our Verbal Reasoning or Quantitative Reasoning. If it's the later then why do we have Quantitative reasoning as a separate section. Why not mix and match the sections and its questions?! :roll: :roll: Wouldn't it be best if we understand the problem statement purely from verbal reasoning perspective rather than convoluting the reasoning to such an extent that the takeaway is hard to apply in actual exam conditions?

The phrase in highlighted above caught my eye. Economic Viability is applicable for future or new Oil Power Plants and not the existing one. Hence current oil prices even though might have fallen dramatically, has no bearing on Economic Viability as defined in the question stem. Hence A is out and C remains.

I hope this helps in simplifying the confusion for some.
_________________

Citius, Altius, Fortius

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Dec 2016
Posts: 84
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2017, 10:03
MICKEYXITIN wrote:
noboru wrote:
boeinz wrote:
How to kill 'A'?


Same here.
I agree with C; but A is also correct.
Could anybody clarify?

A is incorrect because the premise also said that the the price per oil barrel is unchanged (=$35). We cannot change the premise of the argument. A is counter-fact in saying that oil price has fallen.


That's wrong. If Oil was 55 and not it's 20 then it's unchanged at $35 but that is because the price of oil dropped dramatically
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Dec 2016
Posts: 84
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2017, 10:13
Abhishek009 wrote:
piyushksharma 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.


Converting solar energy directly into electricity , cost-efficient in the last decade due to -

1. Technological improvements
2. Reduced equipment costs


Contra -

Rise in Price/Barrel (Oil ) { Fixed at $35 }=> More economic Viability of new solar power plants compared to New Oil Fired Plants Plants.

Thus effectiveness of new solar power plants depends on Rise in Price of Oil.

When price of oil rises people will tend to shift from Oil based power plants to Solar Power Plants. This has not happened till now despite Cost-Efficient production process , since Price of Oil has remain the same at $35.

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. - Not true.
B. The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costsfor that equipment. - Absolutely not true.
C. Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants. - True + Reduced Equipment Cost
D. Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants. - Out of scope.
E. When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable. - Out of scope.


I think what is most hilarious is watching you guys post your awful solutions. After reading a bunch here is why A is not as good as C

A) The thing we are looking at is cost for a coal fired plant, which is made up of many things including the cost of oil. A Explains one factor. And if this is the case then it does explain the answer
C) Just flat out tells us that coal plants are more efficient. So we know it's price has dropped.

In A) we are making an assumption that no other costs have risen and C) We are not therefore the GMAT likes C.

However, I disagree with a lot of the other solutions above who say this is a fancy math question. No A) Is clearly right too.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Dec 2016
Posts: 84
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2017, 10:15
[quote="VeritasPrepKarishma"
If you think about it now, the actual price of the oil has nothing to do with 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power'. This threshold is $35 so you need the oil to go up to $35. Whether the actual price of oil is $10 or $15 or $20, it doesn't matter. It still needs to go up to $35 for solar viability. So option (A) is incorrect.[/quote]

The question says the difference in price of solar minus oil is $35. It doesn't say that oil is under $35 you misread the question.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Dec 2016
Posts: 84
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2017, 10:21
pedrotupy wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
rohansherry 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.


OA:C...pls explain the meaning of the sentence,


It is a good tricky CR question. People with a quantitative bent of mind would love it, I am sure.
Let me put some numbers here to make it clearer. You need the numbers to understand that a paradox exists. Once you do understand that, resolving it is very simple.

Sunlight is free. Infra needed to convert it to electricity is expensive. Say for every one unit of electricity, you need to spend $50 in a solar power plant.

Oil is expensive. Infra needed to convert it to electricity, not so much. Say for every one unit of electricity, you need to spend $40 in an oil fired power plant. Say, the split here is $25 + $15 ($25 is the cost of oil used and $15 is cost of infra for a unit of electricity).

Oil based electricity is cheaper. If the cost of oil rises by $10 to $35, solar power will become viable.
This $35 = the threshold of economic viability for solar power = the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise (mind you, this isn't the actual price of oil)

What happens if you need to spend only $45 in a solar power plant for a unit of electricity? Would you expect 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power' to go to 30? Yes! Now, for solar viability, 'cost of oil + cost of infra in oil power plant' should be only $45. 'Cost of infra in oil power plant' = 15 so we need the oil to go up to $30 only. That will make solar power plants viable. So the threshold of economic viability should decrease.

But the threshold of economic viability for solar power is still $35! It doesn't decrease. That is the paradox! How do you resolve it? By saying that 'Cost of infra in oil power plant' has also gone down by $5 and is only $10 now.

This is what the scene is like now:

Sunlight is free. Infra needed to convert it to electricity is expensive. For every one unit of electricity, you need to spend $45 in a solar power plant.

Oil is expensive. Infra needed to convert it to electricity, not so much. For every one unit of electricity, you need to spend $35 in an oil fired power plant. The split now is $25 + $10 ($25 is the cost of oil used and $10 is cost of infra for a unit of electricity).

You still need the oil price to go up to $35 so that cost of electricity generation in oil power plant is also $45. So you explained the paradox by saying that "Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants." So, option (C) is correct.

If you think about it now, the actual price of the oil has nothing to do with 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power'. This threshold is $35 so you need the oil to go up to $35. Whether the actual price of oil is $10 or $15 or $20, it doesn't matter. It still needs to go up to $35 for solar viability. So option (A) is incorrect.


Sorry Guys, I just can´t agree with the reasons presented to eliminate A.

I Agree that C is a good choice, but A looks pretty fine to me:

Let´s imagine the cost for Solar energy is $60

Oil Production is $15 Plus the price of oil that is $10, so the oil would have to rise $35 in order for solar system be more effective tha oil´s.

If solar go down to $55, and oil price go do by $5 the difference remains the same...
the only thing that could make this choice "bad" is the word "dramatically"on it, but about that, it depends on the context since by my example the price of oil just went down by 50%!!

So, in my opinion this question just has two correct answer...

Thanks


Yes, I agree with this guy. Veritas Karishma is wrong and she made some bad assumptions that oil is under $35.

Let's say the cost of solar starts the decade at $135 and the price of oil is at $100 and this is the only input cost. If the price of solar ends the decade at $100 and oil drops to $65 then it's remained unchanged!!!!


However what if there are other input costs for oil? Clearly we know an oil plant can have other costs. We don't know what % oil makes up the cost.

For C) We know that efficiency has increased. And we know the cost is unchanged at $35. Therefore if the price of oil went up $700 we would know the efficiency compensated for this still. So this answer is enough to explain the answer


I believe C is better as it encompasses more of the answer than A
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have &nbs [#permalink] 06 Aug 2017, 10:21

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   [ 72 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have

  post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.