The government of Lemaria subsidizes its coal mining operations; as a

Question

The government of Lemaria subsidizes its coal mining operations; as a result, coal-based energy prices are relatively low for consumers, and most of the electricity generated in Lemaria is generated in coal burning plants. In an effort to encourage power companies to switch from coal to less polluting fuel, the government's energy commission plans to discontinue subsidies for coal.

Which of the following, if true, lends the most support to a prediction that by enacting the plan the energy commission will achieve its goal?

A. Most coal that is used in Lemaria is used to generate electricity.

B. Sources of energy that pollute less than coal are now only slightly more costly in Lemaria than coal is.

C. Converting a coal-burning power plant to the use of an alternative fuel entails a substantial cost.

D. The Lemarian government does not currently subsidize any fuels other than coal that can be used to generate electricity.

E. Previous initiatives by Lemaria's government aimed at reducing pollution from energy production have all been designed to promote a reduction in energy usage by consumers.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-x570ewuz.png [ 95.96 KiB | Viewed 3334 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

B

Trying to understand why the right answer is right? GMAT Club Tests explanations walk through concepts, shortcuts, and common traps on many questions. See how →

gmatophobia · Answer

This is a plan goal type of question.

Plan  : Discontinue subsidies for coal

Goal  : To encourage power companies to switch from coal to less polluting fuel

We have to strengthen the prediction that by enacting the plan the energy commission will achieve its goal.

Answer Choice Elimination

A. Most coal that is used in Lemaria is used to generate electricity.

The option presented doesn't address why power companies will switch from coal to other alternatives. Even if most coal used in Lemaria is used to generate electricity, we have no reason to believe that the power companies will switch to an alternate form of fuel. We can eliminate A.

B. Sources of energy that pollute less than coal are now only slightly more costly in Lemaria than coal is.

This option mildly strengthens as the option reduces the cost barrier for switching. Hence, its more likely that the power companies will switch to an alternate source. We can keep B and move on.

C. Converting a coal-burning power plant to the use of an alternative fuel entails a substantial cost.

This option presents a hurdle to the plan; companies might be hesitant to incur high costs to switch. The weakens goal. Eliminate C.

D. The Lemarian government does not currently subsidize any fuels other than coal that can be used to generate electricity.

This option also weakens the plan. If no other fuels are subsidized, it's well reasonable to not switch (hence, the goal will fail). However, we must strengthen the argument.  Eliminate D.

E. Previous initiatives by Lemaria's government aimed at reducing pollution from energy production have all been designed to promote a reduction in energy usage by consumers.

This option is irrelevant. It focuses on past initiatives and consumer behavior, something that is not relevant to the plan at hand. The option sheds no light on the current plan's effectiveness. Eliminate E.

Option B

Benja1597 · Answer

I cant see a good answer for this question.

The argument states that there is a subsidy for coal mining, in addition the argument says that most energy is genereted from coal burning plants.

To ecourage power companies to change from coal to a less polluting fuel, the goverment is going to discontinue the subsidy for coal.

B) States that coal still been a little cheaper than other less polluting fuels, thus company will still prefering the coal instead of the other fuels, because companies naturally seek their purpouse of having more profits.
If does not exist a type of penalization for the use of coal that directly affect the economic goal of companies, they would not change to another fuel source.

Fish181 · Answer

This question asks us which answer choice strengthens the claim that by discontinuing subsidies for coal, more energy companies will switch to less polluting energy sources.

The reason I think this one is hard is because the correct answer choice doesn't strengthen all that much, only slightly. That's why it's really important to eliminate each answer choice.

Ask yourself "will this lead to energy companies switching to less polluting energy sources" on each of the answer choices. If the answer is definitely no then cross it out. If you're not sure, just leave it alone and go to the next one.

You won't get questions like these right consistently if you don't use the method above. Why? Because this problem exemplifies how sometimes the best way to find the correct answer is to eliminate all of the incorrect answers.

IMO, the correct answer choice can make you think "since coal is priced only slightly above other less polluting energy sources, maybe without the subsidy it will be priced below" which then, to your point, a company would want to choose a cheaper energy source. It's not certain whether this is true or not. But what IS certain is that there's zero chance any of the other answer choices will make companies want to switch.

GmatKnightTutor · Answer

You want to look for something in which the plan will increase the likelihood of power companies switching from COAL to a LESS POLLUTING FUEL. Don't think there's a CR like this on the gmatknight blog currently but one thing you could keep in mind is that you don't have to prove power companies will switch in order to support it's more likely to happen.

The government of Lemaria subsidizes its coal mining operations; as a result, coal-based energy prices are relatively low for consumers, and most of the electricity generated in Lemaria is generated in coal burning plants. In an effort to encourage power companies to switch from coal to less polluting fuel, the government's energy commission plans to discontinue subsidies for coal.

Which of the following, if true, lends the most support to a prediction that by enacting the plan the energy commission will achieve its goal?

A. Most coal that is used in Lemaria is used to generate electricity. 
Even if most coal was NOT used to generate electricity, this doesn't speak to the likelihood of the plan working or not. The market price of coal remains the market price, for example. And we're already told that most of the electricity generated in Lemaria is in coal burning plants.

B. Sources of energy that pollute less than coal are now only slightly more costly in Lemaria than coal is. 
This is the answer. Without these subsidies, it's likely coal will end up being more expensive than these less polluting sources of energy. Fair to say power companies would find it financially more attractive to switch if coal wasn't cheaper anymore. I admit it doesn't confirm that they would, but we're looking for something that kind of pushes us into that direction.

C. Converting a coal-burning power plant to the use of an alternative fuel entails a substantial cost. 
This goes in the wrong direction in terms of what we're looking. It kind of makes it more likely a power company would stick with coal. "It's gonna cost WHAT to convert this plant?! Even if this low-polluting fuel is cheaper, the eyewatering cost of these machines... would we even be better off financially?!"

D. The Lemarian government does not currently subsidize any fuels other than coal that can be used to generate electricity. 
You know.... this is an interesting one. But ultimately (as long as the rest of the energy market remains the way it currently is) the plan only meaningfully affects the market price of coal.

E. Previous initiatives by Lemaria's government aimed at reducing pollution from energy production have all been designed to promote a reduction in energy usage by consumers 
Nope. This doesn't increase the likelihood that the current plan will ACHIEVE its goal.

kakarot10 · Answer

Problem : pollution 
Plan : discontinue subsidy to coal
Solution intended : company switch from coal to something else

I eliminated c,d,e easily . However option B tells about the whether the companies can switch to another source

Posted from my mobile device

Benja1597 · Answer

Thanks for your reply. I can see my error now.

I missinterpreted the answer by thinking that even after the subsidy were cut, coal would still being cheaper. 
but what the answer was saying is that with the existing subsidy, coal was just a little cheaper than other fuels and therefore if the subsidy is eliminated, the less polluting fuels could be cheaper than or at least equal to the cost of coal, thus incrementing the likelihood of companies change their fuel source.

am I right?

utkarsh0211 · Answer

I was wondering, can't we argue for optin D that if the subsidies are cut, the price of coal might come in parallel to the other sources and hence the power companies can now choose other sources given that price for all are equal ?  GmatKnightTutor   Fish181

rak08 · Answer

I think the highlighted is the giving away point, because if its only slightly more costly, after removing subsidies it might become cheaper than coal.

The government of Lemaria subsidizes its coal mining operations; as a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The government of Lemaria subsidizes its coal mining operations; as a

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards