BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE AWARDS 2026

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

question from OG10, why A is wrong

Expert replies
by tanviet » Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:33 am
Pls, explain, why A is wrong, OA will be posted latter.

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.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by kstv » Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:18 am
Rephasing

Oil price above $35 make solar power commercially viable. This is remaning constant. Why is this ?
Solar energy generation has to be made more efficient, but it is becoming increasingly cost efficient to generating solar energy.
(A) Oil price fall will make it cheaper to use oil fired plant. Threshold level should decrease.
(B) Explalns how cost of solar equip. has reduced. Not helpful.
(C) Technology is also making oil based plants efficient. So the power generated from $ 35 is more now than before. Possible that efficiency is being matched and this explains the constant.
(D) Comparison it with oil not other other forms.
(E) Will not affect the generation of power.

IMO C.[/spoiler]
Last edited by kstv on Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by komal » Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:36 am
duongthang wrote:Pls, explain, why A is wrong, OA will be posted latter.

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?

In a resolve the paradox questions, the correct answer choice should actively resolve both sides of the paradox. It should allow both sides to be factually correct. Because we are not seeking to disprove one side of the situation we must select the answer choice that contains a 'possible cause' of the situation. So, when examining answers, ask yourself if the answer choice could lead to the situation in the stimulus. If yes, the answer choice is correct.

(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
Incorrect : This addresses only one side of the paradox. 'Dramatic fall in the cost of oil' by itself will not make 'New Solar Power plants' more economical than 'New Oil-Fired plants'

(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs for that equipment.
Incorrect : Once again this answer choice addresses only one side of the paradox and does not explain 'a possible cause' of the situation.

(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
Correct : In the stimulus it is implied that 'technological changes have increased efficiency of 'solar power plants'.... This answer choice says 'technological changes have increased the efficiency of 'oil fired power plants'... Thus, it allows both sides to be factually correct and also explains a possible cause of the situation.

(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
Incorrect : Coal-fired or nuclear power plants does not help the discrepancy between 'solar power plants' and 'oil fired plants' Eliminated.

(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable.
Incorrect : The question asks about 'economic viability of solar power plants' not 'economic viability of exploiting reserves of oil'. Eliminated.
Join the discussion

by komal » Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:03 am
kstv wrote: (C) Technology is also making oil based plants efficient. So the power generated from $ 35 is more now than before. Possible that efficiency is being matched and this expalins the constant.

IMO C.[/spoiler]
Awesome explanation. I dint think of it in terms of 'constant' n 'variable'. Thank you.
Join the discussion