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

It is currently 14 Nov 2018, 14:04

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
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • $450 Tuition Credit & Official CAT Packs FREE

     November 15, 2018

     November 15, 2018

     10:00 PM MST

     11:00 PM MST

    EMPOWERgmat is giving away the complete Official GMAT Exam Pack collection worth $100 with the 3 Month Pack ($299)
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made conve

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 479
Location: MS
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made conve  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 09 Oct 2018, 05:32
2
16
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (01:22) correct 47% (01:43) wrong based on 372 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.


Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 94: Critical Reasoning


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here

Originally posted by cool_jonny009 on 16 Feb 2006, 20:28.
Last edited by Bunuel on 09 Oct 2018, 05:32, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8531
Location: Pune, India
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made conve  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 24 Oct 2018, 03:54
56
26
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 (this $50 is the infra cost for solar power).

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 here).

Oil based electricity is cheaper. But if the cost of oil rises by $10 (from $25 to $35), solar power will become viable. Now, at both places, cost of one unit of electricity will be $50.
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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!


Originally posted by VeritasKarishma on 20 Jan 2012, 02:10.
Last edited by VeritasKarishma on 24 Oct 2018, 03:54, edited 2 times in total.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2093
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: QOTD: Technological improvements and reduced equipment  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Sep 2017, 00:41
24
10
Here we have an apparent discrepancy. Converting solar energy directly into electricity has become far more cost-efficient in the last decade. If that is the case, why hasn't the threshold of economic viability for solar power gone down? Let's make sure we understand what they mean by economic viability ("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").

We can infer that new oil-fired power plants are currently more economical than new solar power plants. If the cost per barrel of oil goes up, that would make the oil-fired option less and less economical compared to the solar option. Eventually, if the price per barrel of oil rises high enough, the oil-fired option will become LESS economical than the solar option (i.e. crossing the "threshold of economic viability for solar power").

Imagine that the two options are economically equal (so we're sitting just at the threshold of economic viability). If the cost of converting solar energy into electricity goes DOWN, solar will become the more economical option. However, if the price per barrel of oil also decreases OR if the cost of converting oil to electricity decreases, the two options could become economically equal once again.

Now back to our example... oil plants are currently more economical than solar plants. If the price per barrel of oil goes above $35 per barrel (the threshold of economic viability), solar will become the more economical option. The cost of converting solar energy into electricity has gone DOWN, so we would expect the threshold of economic viability to DECREASE from $35 per barrel. However, the threshold has not changed. We need an answer choice that helps explain why that might be the case:

Quote:
(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.

The actual cost of the oil doesn't change the threshold. Rather, the price of oil simply determines whether we are above, below, or at the threshold. For example, if the threshold is $35 per barrel and the cost of oil falls from $30 per barrel to $5 per barrel, that would take us further away from the threshold but would not CHANGE the threshold itself. Eliminate choice (A).

Quote:
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs for that equipment.

We are only concerned with the cost of solar-power equipment, not the individual components of that cost. Even though the cost of the raw materials has increased, the overall cost of solar-power equipment has decreased. Thus, we would expect the threshold of economic viability to also decrease. Choice (B) does not explain the apparent discrepancy and can be eliminated.

Quote:
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.

If the cost of converting solar energy into electricity goes DOWN, we would expect the threshold of economic viability to decrease. However, if the cost of converting oil into electricity goes down, we would expect the threshold to INCREASE. Thus, if the cost of converting solar AND the cost of converting oil BOTH decrease, the expected changes to the threshold could cancel each other out (one makes the threshold go up, the other makes the threshold go down, so the threshold could remain the same). Choice (C) describes such a situation, so hang on to it.

Quote:
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.

This passage is only concerned with comparing oil-fired and solar power plants. Other types of power plants are not relevant to the author's argument. Eliminate (D).

Quote:
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable.

As with choice (A), we only care about the threshold of economic viability. The source and the actual price per barrel of the oil do not affect the threshold. Eliminate (E).

Choice (C) is the best option.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Posts: 6
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Sep 2011, 02:32
19
7
reply by gmatdetroyer.i find it helpful.pls read it carefully...


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...
General Discussion
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 16
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2009, 13:06
21
2
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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 302
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Aug 2009, 00:49
4
How to kill 'A'?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: what we want to do, do it as soon as possible
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 83
Location: Vietnam
WE 1: 5.0
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2011, 20:43
15
boeinz wrote:
How to kill 'A'?


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.

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: what we want to do, do it as soon as possible
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 83
Location: Vietnam
WE 1: 5.0
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Sep 2011, 01:20
4
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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2010
Posts: 8
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Nov 2011, 07:15
2
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
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 633
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2011, 08:40
2
I chose (C). The approach to solve this question is the same with the question about recycle and new paper. The solar energy industry have its own advance in technology that make the price of solar energy reduce.
But the oil industry also have its own advance in technology. Together, both two price of each kind fall equally. the gap is unchange.
_________________

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 194
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jan 2012, 17:18
2
boeinz wrote:
How to kill 'A'?


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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Posts: 13
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Apr 2012, 11:22
1
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 :wink:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 9
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Nov 2012, 04:36
1
∆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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 84
Location: India
GMAT Date: 10-25-2012
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Feb 2013, 03:22
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...

e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
G
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2736
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Feb 2013, 04:17
2
1
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:

In the last decade,

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.

Hope I made some sense.

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Posts: 106
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Feb 2013, 08:55
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 .
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8531
Location: Pune, India
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Feb 2013, 19:40
1
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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 284
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

New post 29 May 2013, 19:44
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!

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8531
Location: Pune, India
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2013, 02:04
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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

HEC Thread Master
avatar
B
Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 84
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 made conve  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2013, 04:00
I know that the crux of the solution is to eliminate one from A and C. But if we pick A as the right answer, we are assuming that the efficiency of Oil-Fired plants hasn't decreased and if we chose C as the right answer, we are assuming that the price of Oil either hasn't risen or doesn't affect the cost efficiency of Oil-Fired plants.
I am having loads of confusions like these I would be grateful if someone could clear this for me. :cry:
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made conve &nbs [#permalink] 10 Jul 2013, 04:00

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 42 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made conve

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron
Copyright

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®.