A recent spate of launching...

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:23 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

A recent spate of launching...

by bpgen » Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:40 am
A recent spate of launching and operating mishaps with television satellites led to a corresponding surge in claims against companies underwriting satellite insurance. As a result, insurance premiums shot up, making satellites more expensive to launch and operate. This, in turn, has added to the pressure to squeeze more performance out of currently operating satellites.

Which of the following, if true, taken together with the information above, best supports the conclusion that the cost of television satellites will continue to increase?

A. Since the risk to insurers of satellites is spread over relatively few units, insurance premiums are necessarily
very high.
B. When satellites reach orbit and then fail, the causes of failure are generally impossible to pinpoint with
confidence.
C. The greater the performance demands placed on satellites, the more frequently those satellites break down.
D. Most satellites are produced in such small numbers that no economies of scale can be realized.
E. Since many satellites are built by unwieldy international consortia, inefficiencies are inevitable.
"Ambition is the path to success. Persistence is the vehicle you arrive in."
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:23 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by bpgen » Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:41 am
OA C
"Ambition is the path to success. Persistence is the vehicle you arrive in."

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pm
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:7 members

by grockit_andrea » Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:25 pm
The satellites are caught in a vicious cycle: mishaps led to more claims, more claims led to higher premiums, higher premiums made satellite use more expensive, higher expenses led to higher demands on satellite performance. Choice C closes the "circle" of issues here because, if satellites are going to fail more due to high performance demands, then there will be more claims, and the whole thing will start all over again.
Andrea A.
Grockit Tutor
https://www.grockit.com

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:38 am

by bvn » Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:02 am
grockit_andrea wrote:The satellites are caught in a vicious cycle: mishaps led to more claims, more claims led to higher premiums, higher premiums made satellite use more expensive, higher expenses led to higher demands on satellite performance. Choice C closes the "circle" of issues here because, if satellites are going to fail more due to high performance demands, then there will be more claims, and the whole thing will start all over again.
Thank you Andrea. I have matter of understanding the meaning of "squeeze more performance out of currently operating satellites"

Squeeze something out: = to exclude something out ( here is performance) ( As LongMan Dictionary said)

is it right?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:38 am
Thanked: 10 times

by Shawshank » Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:39 am
bvn wrote:
grockit_andrea wrote:The satellites are caught in a vicious cycle: mishaps led to more claims, more claims led to higher premiums, higher premiums made satellite use more expensive, higher expenses led to higher demands on satellite performance. Choice C closes the "circle" of issues here because, if satellites are going to fail more due to high performance demands, then there will be more claims, and the whole thing will start all over again.
Thank you Andrea. I have matter of understanding the meaning of "squeeze more performance out of currently operating satellites"

Squeeze something out: = to exclude something out ( here is performance) ( As LongMan Dictionary said)

is it right?


Squeeze more performance -- As in Overburden or overload the satellite to service more people, hihgher than its Capacity to service.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shawshank Redemtion -- Hope is still alive ...

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pm
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:7 members

by grockit_andrea » Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:16 am
bvn wrote:
grockit_andrea wrote:The satellites are caught in a vicious cycle: mishaps led to more claims, more claims led to higher premiums, higher premiums made satellite use more expensive, higher expenses led to higher demands on satellite performance. Choice C closes the "circle" of issues here because, if satellites are going to fail more due to high performance demands, then there will be more claims, and the whole thing will start all over again.
Thank you Andrea. I have matter of understanding the meaning of "squeeze more performance out of currently operating satellites"

Squeeze something out: = to exclude something out ( here is performance) ( As LongMan Dictionary said)

is it right?


Shawshank is correct, and so are you, bvn; one meaning of "squeeze out" is to exclude, but another is to force production beyond expected capacity. For instance, someone lifting weights at the gym might refer to "squeezing out one more set" when she's trying to push past her normal limits. It's that latter meaning that's being used here. Confusing, I know, but at least you're finding out now, so if it comes up on the actual test, you'll understand both meanings!
Andrea A.
Grockit Tutor
https://www.grockit.com

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:19 pm
:) C
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!