OG 10th Edition Q 153

nishant_1010 · Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:43 am Post subject: OG 10th Edition Q 153

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.

Ans C. I chose A. Why is A incorrect..?

plodder_81 · Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:29 am Post subject:

I would go with option C as economic viability is defined directly in terms of the efficiency of oil powered plants and solar power plants. It tells us how the price hasn't increased for oil.

-plodder

rajesh_ctm · Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject:

A is wrong because it is opposite of what is mentioned. If the price of oil had fallen drastically, Solar power would have become more viable. So instead of explaining, it is questioning the fact.