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 vs C???? Which one is better and why?????[/spoiler]

aspirant2011 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
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 vs C???? Which one is better and why?????[/spoiler]

It should be A.
A. If deposits are being depleted rapidly then it will be commercially viable to extract from sea water, even if the extraction cost from sea water remains high. In near future if demand remains constant and land deposits are insufficient then the market price of uranium will go up.

C. If my explanation of A makes some sense then this is automatically out, isn't it!

What is OA?

yup the OA is A...........can you please tell me one thing that did u reject C solely on the basis of A because I agree C is less strong an option as compared to A but if "there are technological advances happening for cheap extraction" then I don't feel that C is a bad option.....please correct me if I am wrong..........

@aspirant2011 : It is not that A is better than C . It is somple that C does nothing basically.

Cause (cost of an extraction method not reduced) - > Effect (the method is not effective)

or cost reduced - method might be effective.

Let's operate C:
good, technologigy is going ot be wonderful , so cost will go down and what next ? Conclusion has told us already .. when cause is there, effect is there.. so we know this method will be viable

sorry, technologigy is not going ot be wonderful , so cost will go NOT down and what next ? Conclusion has told us already .. when cause is NOT there, effect is NOT there.. so we know this method will NOT be viable

C has no impact whatsoever.

What do these test makers eat to nourish their brain.