Wind Power

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:32 pm
Location: Bangalore,India
Thanked: 67 times
Followed by:2 members

Wind Power

by sumanr84 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:17 am
In response to the increasing cost of producing energy through traditional means, such as combustion, many utility companies have begun investing in renewable energy sources, chiefly wind and solar power, hoping someday to rely on them completely and thus lower energy costs. The utility companies claim that although these sources require significant initial capital investment, they will provide stable energy supplies at low cost. As a result, these sources will be less risky for the utilities than nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil, and coal, whose prices can fluctuate dramatically according to availability.

The claim of the utility companies presupposes which of the following?
1. The public will embrace the development of wind and solar power.
2. No new deposits of gas, oil, and coal will be discovered in the near future.
3. Weather patterns are consistent and predictable.
4. The necessary technology for conversion to wind and solar power is not more expensive than the technology needed to create energy through combustion.
5. Obtaining energy from nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil and coal, cannot be made less risky.

MGMAT ( 700-800 ) OA later.
I am on a break !!
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1578
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 8:02 am
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:760

by Osirus@VeritasPrep » Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:59 am
A- The public accepting these sources of energy does not impact whether or not these energy sources would be cheaper in the long run

B- This has nothing to do with the cost-efficiency of renewable energy sources. Oil could only cost a dollar a barrel, that wouldn't affect the author's claim. He never says that there would not be cheaper alternatives at some point.

C- Correct. If weather patterns aren't consistent then renewable energy would be impossible to harness and use effectively. No business would base its operations on energy that isn't predictable and reliable.

D- The conversion doesn't have to be cheaper, the author only claims that these sources of energy would be "less risky"

E- It doesn't matter if they can be made less risky. The author asserts that renewable energy sources will be less risky, just by the fact that they are renewable and would not run out like coal, oil, etc will one day.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-retake-o ... 51414.html

Brandon Dorsey
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Buy any Veritas Prep book(s) and receive access to 5 Practice Cats for free! Learn More.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:01 am
We cn implement Kaplan Denial Test or the option C.

Let us see what happens then:

Weather patterns are consistent and predictable...

After Kaplan Denial Test :

Weather patterns are NOT consistent and predictable... SO the whole convictionof the utility companies that renewable sources will be available consistently falls APART

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:32 pm
Location: Bangalore,India
Thanked: 67 times
Followed by:2 members

by sumanr84 » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:00 am
Got it guys..well done.


The conclusion of the argument is that renewable sources of energy, chiefly solar and wind, will be less risky for certain utilities than nonrenewable sources, such as oil and gas. The basis for this claim is that the renewable sources will provide stable, low-cost supplies of energy, whereas the prices for nonrenewable sources will fluctuate according to availability. We are asked to find an assumption underlying this argument. In order for this argument to be valid, it must in fact be true that these renewable sources of energy will provide stable, low-cost supplies.

(A) The utility companies' claim has to do with the supply risk of the new energy sources, not with how these sources are received by the public.

(B) If no new supplies of traditional energy sources are found, then it is true that perhaps these nonrenewable supplies will continue to fluctuate in price in a risky manner. However, the argument does not depend upon any assumption about the future discovery of oil and gas supplies.

(C) CORRECT. If we assume that weather patterns are consistent and predictable, then with the stated premises, we can conclude that solar and wind power will be less risky than oil and gas. If, on the other hand, weather patterns are not consistent and predictable, then solar and wind power are not reliable and thus will not provide "stable energy supplies at low cost." Thus, the argument's conclusion directly depends on this assumption.

(D) To reach the required conclusion, it is not necessary to assume that the conversion technology for new sources is not more expensive than the present technology.

(E) This choice does not directly affect the argument. Whether or not energy produced through combustion can be made less risky, the new energy sources might still be less risky than the older sources.
I am on a break !!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:22 am
sumanr84 wrote:In response to the increasing cost of producing energy through traditional means, such as combustion, many utility companies have begun investing in renewable energy sources, chiefly wind and solar power, hoping someday to rely on them completely and thus lower energy costs. The utility companies claim that although these sources require significant initial capital investment, they will provide stable energy supplies at low cost. As a result, these sources will be less risky for the utilities than nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil, and coal, whose prices can fluctuate dramatically according to availability.

Keyphrase here is : wind and solar sources will provide STABLE energy.

The claim of the utility companies presupposes which of the following?

1. The public will embrace the development of wind and solar power.
Incorrect : Public response is out of scope

2. No new deposits of gas, oil, and coal will be discovered in the near future.
Incorrect : Negating this statement does not hurt the argument. Hence Eliminated

3. Weather patterns are consistent and predictable.
Correct : This is what we are looking for. If the company says wind and solar sources will provide STABLE energy, they must be assuming that weather patterns (here wind n sun) are consistent and predictable.

4. The necessary technology for conversion to wind and solar power is not more expensive than the technology needed to create energy through combustion.
Incorrect : We cannot presuppose this from the argument above.

5. Obtaining energy from nonrenewable sources, such as gas, oil and coal, cannot be made less risky.
Incorrect : This answer choice looks attractive but does not hurt the argument if it is negated.

MGMAT ( 700-800 ) OA later.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
Location: Chennai,India
Thanked: 3 times

by paddle_sweep » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:56 am
The questions begins with 'In response to increasing cost'. This being the case is 'D' not a criterion that needs to be validated. If it's renewable energy is going to be expensive then why bother going for it?

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1578
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 8:02 am
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:760

by Osirus@VeritasPrep » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:00 am
paddle_sweep wrote:The questions begins with 'In response to increasing cost'. This being the case is 'D' not a criterion that needs to be validated. If it's renewable energy is going to be expensive then why bother going for it?
You make a valid point. I think this is a poor question and I think the logic required to answer this correctly isn't very good.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-retake-o ... 51414.html

Brandon Dorsey
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Buy any Veritas Prep book(s) and receive access to 5 Practice Cats for free! Learn More.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 am
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
Followed by:64 members
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:48 am
paddle_sweep wrote:The questions begins with 'In response to increasing cost'. This being the case is 'D' not a criterion that needs to be validated. If it's renewable energy is going to be expensive then why bother going for it?

Be careful not to confuse the higher cost of the technology needed to exploit renewable sources with the higher cost of using that source. You seem to be forgetting about other costs: labor, exploration... if a source entails low technology costs but high labor costs, can you conclude that it is cheaper?
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid