certainly 750+ level question.

I disagree with this answer. I went with B.

Maybe someone can clarify my reasoning for me.

I reasoned that currently it is (supposedly) more economically viable to source uranium from mines rather than from sea water, due to production costs. Therefore , no time in the near future will seawater be used to mine uranium.

However, option B poses the question that what if most uranium is used near where it is mined. Hypothetically speaking, what if the only markets that utilized uranium where located near ocean boarders? That would greatly reduce the cost of transportation, ie: fuel costs, vehicles, etc.
Would then the possibility arise that, all other costs considered, seawater could be a cheaper source to gather uranium? If true, it would punch a hole in the authors argument, which I think would be pretty important in "evaluating" it.

Can someone please tell me where I'm going wrong?

Thank you.

IMO is A. No option other than A can help to evaluate the conclusion.

I go with A.

Could not answer this one. I chose D.
Thank you Chris for your explanation.

IMO A....as if land Uranium gets depleted in near future then we will have no option left but to dig-out seawater otherwise prices of scarce natural resources would be even higher than the exploration cost from seawater.

What is OA ?

OA is A.

Please see both of the Chris@VeritasPrep explanations on the prior page.

The interesting thing about this question is that everyone seems to take it the wrong way. For example, many people go for answer choice C, but choice C is not even in the ballpark. The conclusion is a conditional conclusion and it states that ONLY if price of processing sea water goes down it will be profitable to obtain uranium from sea water.

So anything that shows that the cost of processing sea water can or will go down is actually irrelevant to this conclusion. What you need to know is whether there is ANOTHER way that processing seawater could become profitable. If there is another way than this conclusion is weakened. Well what is the main way that something can become profitable without reducing the cost to make that item? If the price you can sell it for goes up! Basic Business 101. That is where answer choice A takes us.

trapped!
Right answer is A

Hello Everyone

I am really having a tough time with this question. Maybe I am thinking too much.

My problem with "A" is that you have to assume that the price of uranium would increase (and increase to such an extent that it offsets the costs of seawater extraction). Is this a solid assumption? Is it not possible that the price would stay the same or even decrease? If that happens the costs of seawater extraction would still be greater that the market price. There wouldn't be a demand for uranium. It would be better if the stimulus mentions something about the demand, but it doesn't and I can't bring in external information into the stimulus.

That's not an unreasonable question at all. On CR questions, the GMAT is generally comfortable invoking the idea that the supply of a product and that product's price will be inversely correlated. Technically, you're right. A drop in supply doesn't guarantee a rise in price, but it's certainly logical to assume that a price increase is a likely consequence of limited supply. (If a reduction in supply didn't cause the price to rise, then, according to Classical Economics, we'd have to assume a drop in demand. You could argue that this is a bigger reach.) More pertinently, if this operation is going to be commericially viable, one of two things has to happen. Either the cost needs to go down or the price of the uranium needs to go up. In order to evaluate whether the cost of extraction needs to go down, we need to know whether there's a chance that some other scenario will cause the price of uranium to rise. A is the only answer that provides a scenario in which this is a likely outcome. So even if you're skeptical at first (and it isn't bad to be!) once you see that the other answer choices won't impact the price, or are outside the scope, you're forced to go back and reevaluate A.

MBAsa wrote:Hello Everyone

I am really having a tough time with this question. Maybe I am thinking too much.

My problem with "A" is that you have to assume that the price of uranium would increase (and increase to such an extent that it offsets the costs of seawater extraction). Is this a solid assumption? Is it not possible that the price would stay the same or even decrease? If that happens the costs of seawater extraction would still be greater that the market price. There wouldn't be a demand for uranium. It would be better if the stimulus mentions something about the demand, but it doesn't and I can't bring in external information into the stimulus.

This CR links the high cost of extracting uranium from seawater to the likelihood that sea uranium will become economically viable.
The assumption is that NOTHING OTHER THAN A REDUCTION IN COST could make sea uranium economically viable.
Answer choice A, rephrased as a statement:
The uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted.
If land uranium is no longer available, then anyone who needs uranium will be forced to purchase sea uranium, enabling sellers of sea uranium to raise prices and offset their costs.
The result:
Sea uranium will become economically viable, despite the high extraction cost.

The correct answer is A.

Question is asking to whether cost to mine uranium can be reduced or not.

A is just telling about uranium on land is depleting or not. If cost to mine uranium from seawater is too high then it will not help even if uranium on land is completelty finished.


C is telling about technology advances which can help to reduce the cost.

I will go with C

GMATGuruNY wrote:

MBAsa wrote:Hello Everyone

I am really having a tough time with this question. Maybe I am thinking too much.

My problem with "A" is that you have to assume that the price of uranium would increase (and increase to such an extent that it offsets the costs of seawater extraction). Is this a solid assumption? Is it not possible that the price would stay the same or even decrease? If that happens the costs of seawater extraction would still be greater that the market price. There wouldn't be a demand for uranium. It would be better if the stimulus mentions something about the demand, but it doesn't and I can't bring in external information into the stimulus.

This CR links the high cost of extracting uranium from seawater to the likelihood that sea uranium will become economically viable.
The assumption is that NOTHING OTHER THAN A REDUCTION IN COST could make sea uranium economically viable.
Answer choice A, rephrased as a statement:
The uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted.
If land uranium is no longer available, then anyone who needs uranium will be forced to purchase sea uranium, enabling sellers of sea uranium to raise prices and offset their costs.
The result:
Sea uranium will become economically viable, despite the high extraction cost.

The correct answer is A.

Question is asking to whether cost to mine uranium can be reduced or not.

A is just telling about uranium on land is depleting or not. If cost to mine uranium from seawater is too high then it will not help even if uranium on land is completelty finished.


C is telling about technology advances which can help to reduce the cost.

Why not C ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

MBAsa wrote:Hello Everyone

I am really having a tough time with this question. Maybe I am thinking too much.

My problem with "A" is that you have to assume that the price of uranium would increase (and increase to such an extent that it offsets the costs of seawater extraction). Is this a solid assumption? Is it not possible that the price would stay the same or even decrease? If that happens the costs of seawater extraction would still be greater that the market price. There wouldn't be a demand for uranium. It would be better if the stimulus mentions something about the demand, but it doesn't and I can't bring in external information into the stimulus.

This CR links the high cost of extracting uranium from seawater to the likelihood that sea uranium will become economically viable.
The assumption is that NOTHING OTHER THAN A REDUCTION IN COST could make sea uranium economically viable.
Answer choice A, rephrased as a statement:
The uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted.
If land uranium is no longer available, then anyone who needs uranium will be forced to purchase sea uranium, enabling sellers of sea uranium to raise prices and offset their costs.
The result:
Sea uranium will become economically viable, despite the high extraction cost.

The correct answer is A.

Hi Mitch,

Please check my response on answer C- Why not C is the answer.

Option A is good but C seems better.

nikhilgmat31 wrote:Question is asking to whether cost to mine uranium can be reduced or not.

A is just telling about uranium on land is depleting or not. If cost to mine uranium from seawater is too high then it will not help even if uranium on land is completelty finished.


C is telling about technology advances which can help to reduce the cost.

Why not C ?

Answer choice C, rephrased as a statement:
There are technological advances that show promise of reducing the cost of extracting uranium from seawater.
This option addresses the commercial viability of uranium extraction AFTER the cost has been reduced.
Conclusion: Extracting uranium from seawater will not be commercial viable UNTIL THE COST CAN BE REDUCED.
The conclusion is constrained to what is possible UNTIL the cost can be reduced.
Since C addresses what is possible AFTER the cost has been reduced, while the conclusion addresses what is possible UNTIL the cost has been reduced, the information in C is irrelevant.
Eliminate C.