It is currently 22 Feb 2018, 20:26

### 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

# Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2015
Posts: 26
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.95
Re: Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2016, 14:56
The question is poorly written. I see "official" answer is E but it actually contradicts the question stem. The question stem states that the wind energy resources is "AVAILABLE". Something inaccessible is inherently not available. Please revise the question.
Intern
Joined: 23 Jun 2015
Posts: 7
Re: Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2016, 05:27
knightofdelta wrote:
egmat wrote:
Hi Everyone,

Here's another question from e-GMAT. It is an evaluate question type, which, as experience of recent test takers suggest, is becoming more important on GMAT.

A zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power. The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States. Given that we can satisfy our electricity needs by harnessing only 40% of the wind energy resources in these 12 states, it is extremely likely that we will be able to do away with CO2.

Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate the above argument?

A. What is the amount of wind energy resources available in rest of the states in the United States?
B. Are there any other renewable energy resources such as solar power, which can be used?
C. With the use of current technologies, what proportion of electricity generated through wind energy can be stored for use at future times when wind may not be blowing?
D. Are there strong corporate lobbies which will strongly oppose any move to substitute non-renewable sources of energy?
E. What proportion of wind energy is available only at inaccessible areas?

-Chiranjeev Singh

The question stems talks about the US achieving a zero CO2 economy in the next 30 to 50 years. Wind energy seems to be a viable source of alternative energy and that it is extremely likely that the US will be able to do away with CO2. The assumption behind this argument is that the demand for the use of energy would not have exceeded the current amount of energy that wind can generate in the next 30 years. Who knows? There may be some other assumptions that I have not considered. But at least I understand the prompt and the right answer is likely to jump at me.

A. What is the amount of wind energy resources available in rest of the states in the United States?
Well, we already the amount of wind energy that is available. The question is how viable is the current wind energy that we have even discovered? Can we use it? This option is irrelevant.

B. Are there any other renewable energy resources such as solar power, which can be used?
We have not finished using wind energy. So this opion has nothing to do with the argument since we already know that wind energy is enough to meet with our needs. Why look to the sun?

C. With the use of current technologies, what proportion of electricity generated through wind energy can be stored for use at future times when wind may not be blowing?
This options looks popular but I disagree with it. We are talking about achieving zero CO2 economy in 30 years or so. What has current technology got to do with it? I-phone 5 will be an obsolete technology in 3 years time, not to talk of 30.

D. Are there strong corporate lobbies which will strongly oppose any move to substitute non-renewable sources of energy?
Quite trickish. Not all lobbies are successful. Popular demand can throw lobbies into a tailspin. But we need to do the acid test. If we answer yes to the question, it looks as if the argument may no longer hold. What if we answer no? Makes no difference; it doesn't make the argument stronger in any way. We still need to know if we can even use the wind.

E. What proportion of wind energy is available only at inaccessible areas?
There you go! If the proportion of the wind that is available in inaccessible area is very , low, say 5%, then that means 95% of the wind is available for use. What if only 1% of the wind is accessible for use and the remaining 99% is 100,000 feet above sea level? That means all the wind energy discovered is not even available.

I am 95% sure the answer is E.

So in your sense , wind and wind energy are same ??
I(many of us who go for C) thought that wind => available total wind
wind energy => converted energy from wind and can be used in place of other energies like electricity .
Please throw some light on this .. Thanks
Manager
Joined: 31 May 2015
Posts: 75
Re: Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2016, 08:52
This question feels the same as when purchasing a bank product, you feel unsure.
_________________

GMAT loosers are born not made !!!

Intern
Status: Researching
Affiliations: NA
Joined: 03 Oct 2014
Posts: 30
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Nonprofit, General Management
GMAT 1: 460 Q14 V36
GMAT 2: 540 Q31 V34
GMAT 3: 610 Q36 V38
GMAT 4: 570 Q29 V40
GPA: 3.11
WE: Account Management (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2017, 20:16
For me it boiled down to constructing an answer question would go to the heart of the argument- zero-CO2 in all the US through generation of renewable energy through non-co2 based means. So if the energy is being produced by x example renewable source then it needs to get to the entire US or else its not serving its purpose to go zero-co2. The only question that goes to what I am imagining is the heart of the issue is not getting energy everywhere. It doesn't matter whether there are other sources, the argument presents one source as the only source.

C is an enticing choice, i narrowed it down to C and E as I was going through the initial list looking for my pre-determined question-answer. The problem that E presented to me was that in face of "the wind being inaccessible" it doesn't matter whether we can store the energy or not because that means the places in the US couldn't get the energy in the first place. I hope that explanation to my reasoning helps.
_________________

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam.

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 437
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Re: Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2017, 20:48
A zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power. The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States. Given that we can satisfy our electricity needs by harnessing only 40% of the wind energy resources in these 12 states, it is extremely likely that we will be able to do away with CO2.

The entire argument boils down to the fact that only 40% of the wind energy resources would be required to satisfy the electricity needs of the country => It's likely we will be able to do away with the CO2.
Quote:
The only way this master plan would NOT work is if the wind energy is in inaccessible areas -> This is what I thought as soon as I read the argument.

Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate the above argument?
Quote:
A. What is the amount of wind energy resources available in rest of the states in the United States?
Argument already states that the 12 states have 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the US. SO this is irrelevant. OUT!

Quote:
B. Are there any other renewable energy resources such as solar power, which can be used?

We are only concerned with Wind Energy. OUT!

Quote:
C. With the use of current technologies, what proportion of electricity generated through wind energy can be stored for use at future times when wind may not be blowing?

Current Tech isn't a part of this discussion. Plus, I really don't think the proportion of electricity that can be stored has anything to do with the author's claim that we can do away with CO2

Quote:
D. Are there strong corporate lobbies which will strongly oppose any move to substitute non-renewable sources of energy?

This was a close second for me. Even if they do strongly oppose, they might not be able to win the bill, or it's equivalent, so this options leaves a lot to be desired. Good try but OUT!

Quote:
E. What proportion of wind energy is available only at inaccessible areas?

If majority of the wind energy is ONLY available at inaccessible areas then we will not be able to do away with CO2.
_________________

Put in the work, and that dream score is yours!

Intern
Joined: 13 Oct 2016
Posts: 13
Re: Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2017, 02:33
egmat wrote:
Hi Everyone,

Here's another question from e-GMAT. It is an evaluate question type, which, as experience of recent test takers suggest, is becoming more important on GMAT.

A zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power. The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States. Given that we can satisfy our electricity needs by harnessing only 40% of the wind energy resources in these 12 states, it is extremely likely that we will be able to do away with CO2.

Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate the above argument?

A. What is the amount of wind energy resources available in rest of the states in the United States?
B. Are there any other renewable energy resources such as solar power, which can be used?
C. With the use of current technologies, what proportion of electricity generated through wind energy can be stored for use at future times when wind may not be blowing?
D. Are there strong corporate lobbies which will strongly oppose any move to substitute non-renewable sources of energy?
E. What proportion of wind energy is available only at inaccessible areas?

-Chiranjeev Singh

Hello payal
i have a different opinion, please correct me if i am wrong
option E Says that portion of wind energy available at particular place will determine use of that energy at that place. what if 100% energy is available at inaccessible ares then i can tap that energy and what if 0% energy is available at inaccessible areas then i can use transmission system to transmit power
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1139
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Re: Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2017, 07:43
egmat wrote:
Hi Everyone,

Here's another question from e-GMAT. It is an evaluate question type, which, as experience of recent test takers suggest, is becoming more important on GMAT.

A zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power. The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States. Given that we can satisfy our electricity needs by harnessing only 40% of the wind energy resources in these 12 states, it is extremely likely that we will be able to do away with CO2.

Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate the above argument?

A. What is the amount of wind energy resources available in rest of the states in the United States?
B. Are there any other renewable energy resources such as solar power, which can be used?
C. With the use of current technologies, what proportion of electricity generated through wind energy can be stored for use at future times when wind may not be blowing?
D. Are there strong corporate lobbies which will strongly oppose any move to substitute non-renewable sources of energy?
E. What proportion of wind energy is available only at inaccessible areas?

-Chiranjeev Singh

A very good questio from Egamt

To correctly evaluate the conclusion that US will do away with CO2 we need to shown that the wind energy resources available in the said areas are accessible .
If they are not accessible then they can not be harnessed and US will not be able to achieve is commitment .

_________________

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality

Intern
Joined: 10 May 2017
Posts: 3
Re: Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2017, 11:26
E would be a good answer. It talks about energy available to inaccessible areas. If wind energy is not available to these areas then those areas will have to depend on nuclear power. If this is the case the CO2 level goes up. If the wind energy is available then nuclear energy would not be needed and US can achieve the required goal.

Hence (E).

Hope this Helps !
Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2016
Posts: 211
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 4
Re: Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2017, 18:42
egmat wrote:
Hi Everyone,

Here's another question from e-GMAT. It is an evaluate question type, which, as experience of recent test takers suggest, is becoming more important on GMAT.

A zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power. The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States. Given that we can satisfy our electricity needs by harnessing only 40% of the wind energy resources in these 12 states, it is extremely likely that we will be able to do away with CO2.

Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate the above argument?

A. What is the amount of wind energy resources available in rest of the states in the United States?
B. Are there any other renewable energy resources such as solar power, which can be used?
C. With the use of current technologies, what proportion of electricity generated through wind energy can be stored for use at future times when wind may not be blowing?
D. Are there strong corporate lobbies which will strongly oppose any move to substitute non-renewable sources of energy?
E. What proportion of wind energy is available only at inaccessible areas?

-Chiranjeev Singh

I am sorry, but I think that most of the people who chose C were tied up between C and E. The reason they chose C is that E is not making any sense ( I mean, grammatically)
I just didn't know what does that statement even mean! For starters, "ONLY" does not modify a legit part of the statement.
Not imposing SC on anyone (I am not great at SC, either ), but just trying to say that I did not understand that option. Experts please correct me, if I'm wrong, or else correct the option. :p
_________________

Desperately need 'KUDOS' !!

Re: Zero CO2 economy - a tricky one   [#permalink] 20 Aug 2017, 18:42

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 49 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by