Critical Reasoning

Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?

(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
(B) Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the cost of extracting uranium from seawater
(D) Whether the total amount of uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
(E) Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater

[spoiler]OA: A[/spoiler]

Experts, please explain how to attack evaluating argument.
Please explain every option on the basis of the technique.

Thanks.

IMO C. I feel that A and D are also contenders. However, scope is cost reduction and not uranium amount

What is OA?

I have heard that EVALUATION CR's are like the strengthen and weaken type CR's. I could not analyze this on the basis of that rule.

Would any one explain?

Thanks.

My answer is A

Since the argument's last line says:

"this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable."

It can be inferred that this method is not likely to be viable in the near future unless and until the prices of uranium in the market rise higher than the cost of this method.

And we know when a resource comes near to its point of exhaustion, its prices rise e.g. Petroleum.

As such If the land deposits are depleting rapidly then the prices will rise high enough to make extraction of uranium from seawater viable in the near future.

I got it wrong and trapped by GMAC

Nice explanation is provided by our great expert Ron

Hope this will help

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/mos ... t3508.html

gmat_perfect wrote:I have heard that EVALUATION CR's are like the strengthen and weaken type CR's. I could not analyze this on the basis of that rule.

Would any one explain?

Thanks.

I rejected other options because:


A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
(B) Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the cost of extracting uranium from seawater
(D) Whether the total amount of uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
(E) Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater

B) the argument says world market.

D) It may already be so earth is 75% water and only 25% land

E) Water water everywhere. Well i don't think fresh water and seawater extraction can have that much of a price difference. Plus rivers go to Seas and oceans thus creating higher concentrations in seas and oceans.

C) Was a difficult one but it required assumptions that R&D is currently being conducted and its success can be expected in the near future.

A) Based on logical fact it has it all of sure that prices will rise in near future.

Ok here I will explain this one

gmat_perfect wrote:Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?

(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
Yes - If deposits are rapidly depleted then irrespective of cost I have to start getting Uranium from seawater
No - If deposits are not rapidly depleted then no need to start getting Uranium from seawater

(B) Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined - This is totally irrelevant

(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the cost of extracting uranium from seawater
Yes - there are. Same thing is mentioned in passage.
No - there are not. If there are no technological advances thenextraction will not commercially viable.

(D) Whether the total amount of uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land - How does will help to evaluate the conclusion.
If we say Yes, then also it is just FYI that seawater contains more Uranium than land does.
No - This is also FYI that seawater does not contain more Uranium than land does.

(E) Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater - this is also same as of B

[spoiler]OA: A[/spoiler]

Experts, please explain how to attack evaluating argument.
Please explain every option on the basis of the technique.

Thanks.

This shows only A holds.

hi gmat_perfect - thanks for posting a great question for discussion.

In any evaluate the argument question, it is best to focus on potential problems in the original argument. As you read the argument stimulus, consider what assumptions might exist that need to be clarified. One important strategy that I emphasize for all strengthen, weaken, and evaluate the argument type questions is that you should try to anticipate the correct answer before polluting your mind with the answer choices.

In reading this argument, I immediately identify one flaw in the reasoning. It is stated that at the present time the cost of extracting the uranium from seawater is greater than the market price for uranium. The conclusion then states that because of that fact, it is unlikely that this method will be commercially viable until the cost of extraction from seawater goes down.

But isn't there another way that extraction from seawater could become commercially viable other than by reducing extraction costs? What if the cost for extraction from seawater remained the same but the market price for uranium went up so that the extraction was then profitable. Before I look at the answer choices, I am quite sure that one of them will refer to this flaw that exists in the argument.

One thing I have certainly noticed with harder CR problems is that the more obvious assumption/flaw will not be addressed in the answer choices. Instead, a more subtle and difficult assumption will be addressed and you will not be able to come up with that on your own. Also, when you do properly identify the assumption/flaw on your own, the answer choice may address it in a tricky and obtuse way. Now lets look at each answer choice individually:

(A) Correct - Why do we need to assess whether uranium deposits on land are rapidly depleting? If they were, then the price of uranium would go up and obtaining uranium from seawater could become commercially viable without any reduction in extraction costs. Without knowing this information, this argument is extremely tenuous.

(B) Incorrect - Regardless of whether most uranium is used close to its removal location does nothing to address the issue of commercial viability with seawater extraction. The only way seawater extraction would become commercially viable is if market price becomes greater than extraction costs. The test-makers want you to think that perhaps transportation costs could be an issue but that is irrelevant and out of scope of this conclusion.

(C) Incorrect - A bit trickier of an answer choice. This is wrong because regardless of the answer to this question, it does not affect the quality of the conclusion. The problem with this argument is that the author has neglected the possibility that price could go up. So regardless of whether it is learned that there are no new promises for future innovation or many, this argument contains the same problem that it did originally

(D) Incorrect - Again, does not address any problem in the argument. There could be 1000 times more uranium available in the sea than on land or vice versa, and it does nothing to address whether extraction would be commercially viable or not.

(E) Incorrect - Easiest to eliminate. Nothing in the argument about freshwater extraction. Clearly out of scope.

Hope this helps and please let me know if you have any further questions...

chris@veritasprep wrote:hi gmat_perfect - thanks for posting a great question for discussion.

In any evaluate the argument question, it is best to focus on potential problems in the original argument. As you read the argument stimulus, consider what assumptions might exist that need to be clarified. One important strategy that I emphasize for all strengthen, weaken, and evaluate the argument type questions is that you should try to anticipate the correct answer before polluting your mind with the answer choices.

In reading this argument, I immediately identify one flaw in the reasoning. It is stated that at the present time the cost of extracting the uranium from seawater is greater than the market price for uranium. The conclusion then states that because of that fact, it is unlikely that this method will be commercially viable until the cost of extraction from seawater goes down.

But isn't there another way that extraction from seawater could become commercially viable other than by reducing extraction costs? What if the cost for extraction from seawater remained the same but the market price for uranium went up so that the extraction was then profitable. Before I look at the answer choices, I am quite sure that one of them will refer to this flaw that exists in the argument.

One thing I have certainly noticed with harder CR problems is that the more obvious assumption/flaw will not be addressed in the answer choices. Instead, a more subtle and difficult assumption will be addressed and you will not be able to come up with that on your own. Also, when you do properly identify the assumption/flaw on your own, the answer choice may address it in a tricky and obtuse way. Now lets look at each answer choice individually:

(A) Correct - Why do we need to assess whether uranium deposits on land are rapidly depleting? If they were, then the price of uranium would go up and obtaining uranium from seawater could become commercially viable without any reduction in extraction costs. Without knowing this information, this argument is extremely tenuous.

(B) Incorrect - Regardless of whether most uranium is used close to its removal location does nothing to address the issue of commercial viability with seawater extraction. The only way seawater extraction would become commercially viable is if market price becomes greater than extraction costs. The test-makers want you to think that perhaps transportation costs could be an issue but that is irrelevant and out of scope of this conclusion.

(C) Incorrect - A bit trickier of an answer choice. This is wrong because regardless of the answer to this question, it does not affect the quality of the conclusion. The problem with this argument is that the author has neglected the possibility that price could go up. So regardless of whether it is learned that there are no new promises for future innovation or many, this argument contains the same problem that it did originally

(D) Incorrect - Again, does not address any problem in the argument. There could be 1000 times more uranium available in the sea than on land or vice versa, and it does nothing to address whether extraction would be commercially viable or not.

(E) Incorrect - Easiest to eliminate. Nothing in the argument about freshwater extraction. Clearly out of scope.

Hope this helps and please let me know if you have any further questions...

Good Catch.

Thanks.

chris@veritasprep wrote:hi gmat_perfect - thanks for posting a great question for discussion.

In any evaluate the argument question, it is best to focus on potential problems in the original argument. As you read the argument stimulus, consider what assumptions might exist that need to be clarified. One important strategy that I emphasize for all strengthen, weaken, and evaluate the argument type questions is that you should try to anticipate the correct answer before polluting your mind with the answer choices.

In reading this argument, I immediately identify one flaw in the reasoning. It is stated that at the present time the cost of extracting the uranium from seawater is greater than the market price for uranium. The conclusion then states that because of that fact, it is unlikely that this method will be commercially viable until the cost of extraction from seawater goes down.

But isn't there another way that extraction from seawater could become commercially viable other than by reducing extraction costs? What if the cost for extraction from seawater remained the same but the market price for uranium went up so that the extraction was then profitable. Before I look at the answer choices, I am quite sure that one of them will refer to this flaw that exists in the argument.

One thing I have certainly noticed with harder CR problems is that the more obvious assumption/flaw will not be addressed in the answer choices. Instead, a more subtle and difficult assumption will be addressed and you will not be able to come up with that on your own. Also, when you do properly identify the assumption/flaw on your own, the answer choice may address it in a tricky and obtuse way. Now lets look at each answer choice individually:

(A) Correct - Why do we need to assess whether uranium deposits on land are rapidly depleting? If they were, then the price of uranium would go up and obtaining uranium from seawater could become commercially viable without any reduction in extraction costs. Without knowing this information, this argument is extremely tenuous.

(B) Incorrect - Regardless of whether most uranium is used close to its removal location does nothing to address the issue of commercial viability with seawater extraction. The only way seawater extraction would become commercially viable is if market price becomes greater than extraction costs. The test-makers want you to think that perhaps transportation costs could be an issue but that is irrelevant and out of scope of this conclusion.

(C) Incorrect - A bit trickier of an answer choice. This is wrong because regardless of the answer to this question, it does not affect the quality of the conclusion. The problem with this argument is that the author has neglected the possibility that price could go up. So regardless of whether it is learned that there are no new promises for future innovation or many, this argument contains the same problem that it did originally

(D) Incorrect - Again, does not address any problem in the argument. There could be 1000 times more uranium available in the sea than on land or vice versa, and it does nothing to address whether extraction would be commercially viable or not.

(E) Incorrect - Easiest to eliminate. Nothing in the argument about freshwater extraction. Clearly out of scope.

Hope this helps and please let me know if you have any further questions...

Hi Chris,

Thankyou for the comprehensive analysis of this tough evaluation problem.

I could understand all of the choices but I am not very much convinced with your explanation for choice C... please elaborate a bit more on option C ....in fact using my POE i could boil down to A and C...however your explanation for A makes perfect sense...

Thanks!

reply2spg wrote:I got it wrong and trapped by GMAC

Nice explanation is provided by our great expert Ron

Hope this will help

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/mos ... t3508.html

gmat_perfect wrote:I have heard that EVALUATION CR's are like the strengthen and weaken type CR's. I could not analyze this on the basis of that rule.

Would any one explain?

Thanks.

thanks for the link,
evaluate the argument question are really very tricky....
thanks again for the link.

HI ssgmatter,

Sorry for the slow response - been away from my computer for the last week. Let me elaborate a little more on answer choice C. The conclusion states that "therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable." Focusing on the bold section, it is clear that the argument is only relevant to the current situation where the costs for extracting uranium from seawater are high. In other words this argument has already accounted for the possibility described in C and is stating that given the CURRENT SITUATION (extracting seawater is prohibitively expensive) obtaining uranium from seawater won't be commerically viable. But, as I mentioned in my previous post, this argument does not account for the possibility that other factors might affect the price of uranium in a way that would make this expensive technique commercially viable before it is made less expensive.

To help see the flaw with C, consider another example. Take this argument: Over the past 5 years, gold prices have been increasingly steadily and, generally speaking, when gold prices go up so do the stock prices of most gold manufacturing companies. Until gold prices begin to go down, investors should continue to purchase shares in GOLD, Inc., a major goldmining operation. If you were asked to choose a question that would allow you to better evaluate the argument, consider these two possibilities:

(A) Whether gold prices will be going up or down next year.
(B) Whether the SEC is investigating GOLD, Inc. for fraud and embezzlement

Answer Choice A is identical to answer choice C in the previous example. Whether gold goes up or down next year has no bearing on the argument at all. It simply states that UNTIL IT GOES DOWN you should buy shares. We need something that would be important in assessing the current situation and answer choice B would indeed be just that. Hope this helps!

chris@veritasprep wrote:HI ssgmatter,

Sorry for the slow response - been away from my computer for the last week. Let me elaborate a little more on answer choice C. The conclusion states that "therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable." Focusing on the bold section, it is clear that the argument is only relevant to the current situation where the costs for extracting uranium from seawater are high. In other words this argument has already accounted for the possibility described in C and is stating that given the CURRENT SITUATION (extracting seawater is prohibitively expensive) obtaining uranium from seawater won't be commerically viable. But, as I mentioned in my previous post, this argument does not account for the possibility that other factors might affect the price of uranium in a way that would make this expensive technique commercially viable before it is made less expensive.

To help see the flaw with C, consider another example. Take this argument: Over the past 5 years, gold prices have been increasingly steadily and, generally speaking, when gold prices go up so do the stock prices of most gold manufacturing companies. Until gold prices begin to go down, investors should continue to purchase shares in GOLD, Inc., a major goldmining operation. If you were asked to choose a question that would allow you to better evaluate the argument, consider these two possibilities:

(A) Whether gold prices will be going up or down next year.
(B) Whether the SEC is investigating GOLD, Inc. for fraud and embezzlement

Answer Choice A is identical to answer choice C in the previous example. Whether gold goes up or down next year has no bearing on the argument at all. It simply states that UNTIL IT GOES DOWN you should buy shares. We need something that would be important in assessing the current situation and answer choice B would indeed be just that. Hope this helps!

as you said the correct answer to an Evaluate the argument question could be a strengthener or a weakener . Then doesnt an affirmative answer to Option C strengthen the Conclusion that is drawn by the argument in the respective CR above.Applying the same logic to the question u posed as an example above, doesnt an affirmative answer to the example above strengthen the conclusion.
If the gold prices will continue to rise next year then , we should continue to purchase shares in gold companies

i chose the wrong option C its a good question to understand .

We are already haveing uranium from land whose pextraction prices is defintely < market price. So unless that's depleting..we shall not think of other alternatives.

(A) is the choice