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

Redeem

Cost of buidling nuclear reactors

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:43 pm
Thanked: 1 times

Cost of buidling nuclear reactors

by pareekbharat86 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:00 am
Most energy analysts now agree that the costs of building and maintaining nuclear reactors are too high for nuclear power to likely prove cheaper than coal or oil in the long run.

(A) too high for nuclear power to likely
(B) high enough for nuclear power to be unlikely to
(C) high enough that it is unlikely nuclear power will
(D) so high that nuclear power is unlikely to
(E) so high as to be unlikely that nuclear power will

OA is D.

I had 2 issues with this question.
1. Is it correct to compare nuclear power with coal or oil?
2. Which of the 2 is a better usage? 'nuclear power is unlikely to prove cheaper...' or 'nuclear power is unlikely to be proved cheaper...'?

Please help.
Thanks,
Bharat.
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:23 am

by gcanyon » Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:41 am
Since the point here is to test your english, not your knowledge of energy policy, the question of whether it's appropriate to compare nuclear power with coal or oil is moot. Nevertheless, the majority of the world's electricity is generated using coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and oil (in that order), so yes, it's appropriate.

To your second, more salient, question, "unlikely to prove cheaper," is better than "unlikely to be proved cheaper." "To be," is a warning sign, and not just for Hamlet. It makes the statement passive, and it adds nothing but an extra word.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:43 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by pareekbharat86 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:06 pm
gcanyon wrote:Since the point here is to test your english, not your knowledge of energy policy, the question of whether it's appropriate to compare nuclear power with coal or oil is moot. Nevertheless, the majority of the world's electricity is generated using coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and oil (in that order), so yes, it's appropriate.

To your second, more salient, question, "unlikely to prove cheaper," is better than "unlikely to be proved cheaper." "To be," is a warning sign, and not just for Hamlet. It makes the statement passive, and it adds nothing but an extra word.
My concern with parallelism was that nuclear power (electrical energy) cannot be compared with oil/coal (source of energy). I guess I am wrong, but why?

Thanks for the explanation on the second concern.
Thanks,
Bharat.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
Elite Legendary Member
Posts: 10392
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Thanked: 2867 times
Followed by:511 members
GMAT Score:800

by [email protected] » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:31 pm
Hi Bharat,

While I agree with your point, the GMAT will occasionally give you an SC that has some slight "conversational" language in it. You'll notice that ALL of the answer choices use the phrase "nuclear power" and you don't have any way to change the phrase "cheaper than coal or oil..." As such, you have to just accept the "implied" comparison and move on to the other grammar rules that are at play.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1