Stuart please help!!

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:12 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Stuart please help!!

by Nidhs » Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:26 pm
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.

From what i understand economic viability in this case means monetery advantage of solar power plant over that of oil-fired plants has been constant in spite of the fact that technology has made it cheoper to convert solar energy to electricity. I don't understand what the following sentence means
(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)
Could you please expain to me :oops:
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:43 am
(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)
The parenthetical comment is defining "the threshold of economic viability for solar power".

Here's the essence of the stimulus:

Solar power has become more cost effective compared to how it used to be.

However, the cost effectiveness of solar power has remained constant compared to oil.

The only way to reconcile these facts is to show that oil had also become more cost effective compared to how it used to be.

So, we look for an answer that shows an improvement in oil efficiency: choose (C).
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:47 pm

by nirupshetty » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:58 am
Why not 'A'? Cost of Oil is also a big factor for determining economic viability.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 7 times

by torontogmat.com » Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:11 pm
The question asks

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?

Choice A would be relevant if we had been asked to explain why solar power has not become economically viable. Instead, we were asked about the *level* (of the price of oil) at which solar power would become viable, and why it hasn't changed.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Tue May 10, 2016 11:34 pm
i am pretty sure that the right answer is A