Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 May 2017, 20:32

### 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

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 269
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 419 [5] , given: 18

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2009, 12:46
5
KUDOS
54
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (02:05) correct 41% (01:32) wrong based on 1610 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA:C...pls explain the meaning of the sentence,
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by JarvisR on 08 Sep 2016, 23:35, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
New!
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7368
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2281

Kudos [?]: 15076 [33] , given: 224

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

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2012, 03:10
33
KUDOS
Expert's post
22
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
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. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Last edited by VeritasPrepKarishma on 14 Feb 2013, 20:31, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 20
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 18 [13] , given: 1

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

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2009, 14:06
13
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
C) Correct. For Solar plants to become more viable, oil price has to go up so that electricity
generated by Oil plants become costlier than Solar plants because as Oil-fire based technology
also evolved. So if oil price doesn't go above $35, oil based electricity will be cheaper. Also in "(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)", author is comparing Solar plants to new oil based plants. -STL Manager Status: what we want to do, do it as soon as possible Joined: 24 May 2010 Posts: 110 Location: Vietnam WE 1: 5.0 Followers: 2 Kudos [?]: 65 [7] , given: 315 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 08 Mar 2011, 21:43 7 This post received KUDOS 1 This post was BOOKMARKED 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.
_________________

Consider giving me kudos if you find my explanations helpful so i can learn how to express ideas to people more understandable.

Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [6] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2011, 03:32
6
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED

let us say earlier it used to cost $50 to get 1 unit of power using solar power system....and one barrel of oil costing$20 produced 1 unit of energy using oil fired system....

oil wud have to rise to $50 per barrel so that we cud switch to solar power...or solar power wud have to fall to$20 to make the switch economically viable...

Now if Oil prices have fallen dramatically!!!
we were getting 1 unit from $20 of oil...lets say oil prices have fallen to$5 per barrel .... and now we are getting 1 unit from oil power for $5 ... Also solar power has become more efficient...say now we are getting 2 units of energy from$ 50 using solar power...this means 1 unit for $25 ... in this case solar power wud have to fall to$5 or oil wud have to rise to $25 .... SO you can see THRESHOLD HAS CHANGED....BUT ACCORDING TO STIMULI THRESHOLD REMAINS UNCHANGED... sO wat wud have happened..?? now with increased efficiency..we can get 2 units of energy from solar power and it still costs us$50 ....

As the stimuli says the threshold remains the same....
wat if oil power plants have become efficient ... earlier we were getting 1 unit from $20 ...NOW WE GET 2 UNITS USING$20 ...???

in this case..either solar power drops to $20 or oil rises to$50 .... threshold remains the same...

Important thing in this question is THRESHOLD....thats wat makes it confusing....hope it helps...
Manager
Status: what we want to do, do it as soon as possible
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 110
Location: Vietnam
WE 1: 5.0
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 65 [2] , given: 315

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

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2011, 02:20
2
KUDOS
firstly, the argument compares the efficiency of Solar energy manufaction nowadays with the solar energy manufaction last decades and concludes that solar energy today is created more efficiently than the past solar energy did.
Second, it raises the paradox that why the efficiency of solar energy comparing with efficiency of other kinds energy like oil is unchanged (through a blah blah blah measure called threshold or oil price rise whatever) ??? The reason that other energy like oil is also improved in technical is a possible concilement for the paradox which underminds the author's presumtion.
(A) does not give any resolution for paradox when saying that oil price is fallen. If oil price falls rather than increases, the efficiency of solar energy operation is decreased relatively with other kind of energy while the premises also said that the connection between these two energy is unchange though a decade by giving evidence of threshold viability of 35$. _________________ Consider giving me kudos if you find my explanations helpful so i can learn how to express ideas to people more understandable. Intern Joined: 23 Jun 2010 Posts: 9 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 8 [2] , given: 2 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 04 Nov 2011, 08:15 2 This post received KUDOS Following can be used to kill A, Threshold did not change for NEW oil-fired plant (implicit Threshold probably did change for OLD oil-fired plant) Combine both and one can see that it can only be explained by increased efficiency of NEW oil-fired plant and not by lowered price of oil Senior Manager Joined: 25 Nov 2011 Posts: 256 Location: India Concentration: Technology, General Management GPA: 3.95 WE: Information Technology (Computer Software) Followers: 4 Kudos [?]: 182 [2] , given: 20 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 19 Jan 2012, 18:18 2 This post received KUDOS noboru wrote: noboru wrote: boeinz wrote: How to kill 'A'? Same here. I agree with C; but A is also correct. Could anybody clarify? nobody is going to clarify? I will try to explain how to kill A. Initially we have 2 power plants: oil-fired and solar. Now, technological improvements and reduced equipment costs brought down solar-power plants cost. But oil-fired power plants are still economical because the threshold stuck at some value. It can happen only either oil price has come down or similar improvements happened in oil-powered plants as well. But as the question is to select something that helps explain most, C is the right answer. A is not answer only because E is present. _________________ ------------------------- -Aravind Chembeti Senior Manager Joined: 26 Jul 2009 Posts: 350 Followers: 2 Kudos [?]: 81 [1] , given: 32 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 Aug 2009, 01:49 1 This post received KUDOS How to kill 'A'? SVP Joined: 16 Jul 2009 Posts: 1536 Schools: CBS WE 1: 4 years (Consulting) Followers: 44 Kudos [?]: 1193 [1] , given: 2 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 04 Jan 2011, 16:27 1 This post received KUDOS mundasingh123 wrote: Can u pls reveal the source ? I've seen this one on GMATPrep. _________________ The sky is the limit 800 is the limit GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings Intern Joined: 13 Sep 2015 Posts: 13 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 5 [1] , given: 4 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 21 Nov 2015, 20:37 1 This post received KUDOS Threshold is simply a dollar value to which oil prices must rise.. If efficiency of Solar Power Plants were to remain same as before, and oil prices were to drop significantly (with same constant oil power plant efficiency as before) , the threshold will remain the same. This is why I stressed on the to vs. by difference in the question's definition of threshold. It is the price TO which prices must rise. Take for example, threshold value is 35$.
Now if oil prices are 20$today, it has to rise to 35$. If it is 30$, it has to rise to 35$. If it falls to 1$, it still has to rise to 35$. It is a standard irrespective of current oil trends. If it were written "the price BY which oil prices...", it would mean the threshold would attain values 15$,5$,34$assuming solar prices are at 35$ in the above example.

Another example: Suppose Solar power plants remain at same efficiency, but Oil plants improve theirs. Now oil would be produced at much cheaper rates, so its economic viability will rise.. In other words, economic viability of solar power plant with respect to oil plant will reduce(since now it is much preferable to produce oil generated power). This viability is quantified by 'threshold'. Since Oil is now much more 'viable' source of energy compared with Solar power, threshold will now rise.

However, a much preferable approach to solving this question is by eliminating all other options, which is possible if you are able to spot that subtle difference 'to and by' which changes the meaning of threshold entirely if they are used interchangeably.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7368
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2281

Kudos [?]: 15076 [1] , given: 224

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

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2016, 01:10
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
gatreya14 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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
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. Hello. Can you please explain what is wrong with (E)? If, every time price of oil goes up, and previous reserves that were not available for use end up becoming available, it suggests that the oil manufacturers have been successful in manipulating the supply, and therefore the price of oil to keep it low enough to make solar energy not economically feasible. (E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable. What could be the implication of (E)? That the extra oil availability would keep actual oil prices low. The point is that actual price of oil has NOTHING to do with 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power'. For solar viability, the OIL PRICE needs to GO UP TO$35. This $35 is the threshold of economic viability. It doesn't matter what the actual cost of oil is right now. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 97
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 2.8
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 50 [1] , given: 23

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2017, 12:50
1
KUDOS
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
Joined: 04 Aug 2015
Posts: 76
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q50 V25
GPA: 3.39
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [1] , given: 20

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

### Show Tags

01 May 2017, 01:02
1
KUDOS
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. Senior Manager Joined: 27 May 2009 Posts: 269 Followers: 3 Kudos [?]: 419 [0], given: 18 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 22 Aug 2009, 07:57 lalmanistl wrote: C) Correct. For Solar plants to become more viable, oil price has to go up so that electricity generated by Oil plants become costlier than Solar plants because as Oil-fire based technology also evolved. So if oil price doesn't go above$35, oil based electricity will be cheaper.

Also in "(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)", author is comparing Solar
plants to new oil based plants.

-STL

Ohh....i shuldnt miss this kinfd of ques.. ya thanks for explaining.. And congrtas for your first Kudos
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1536
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1193 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2010, 11:03
boeinz wrote:
How to kill 'A'?

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

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1536
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1193 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2011, 11:54
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
noboru wrote:
boeinz wrote:
How to kill 'A'?

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

nobody is going to clarify?
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 490
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 13

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

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

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2011, 05:32
Can u pls reveal the source ?
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 86
Schools: Thunderbird '15
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 8

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

### Show Tags

06 Jan 2011, 04:34
I think it is C
Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 86
Schools: Thunderbird '15
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 8

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

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2011, 01:12
C sounds better
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have   [#permalink] 11 Jan 2011, 01:12

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 59 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs 0 10 Jul 2013, 05:00
3 Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 4 08 Feb 2013, 05:17
2 Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 4 03 Jun 2015, 09:59
3 Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 3 10 Oct 2016, 04:50
13 Improved technology and equipment often result in fewer 23 27 Aug 2015, 03:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by