IMO C. But A seems to be right. Am confused between A and C! Experts, please help.

amirhakimi wrote: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.

Answer is A

Here is how I answer this CR:

The arguments says that due to some reasons solar energy was more cost-efficient in the last decade but the viability remain constant. According to the argument, viability is the amount of price increase for oil barrel that make solar energy plants more economical than oil-based power plant.

This means, right now oil price should increase 35$ to make solar power plants more efficient than oil-based power plant. This amount doesn't change although solar energy has become more efficient.

We need to provide some justification for this surprise.

A) if the cost of oil has fallen, the constant should be increased and not be constant. This not justifies the surprise but questions the surprise!

B)The raw material cost of equipment is not relevant as far as the cost of equipment is reduced. By the way, this doesn't help to justify the surprise.

C)This option provides a reason for the surprise fact. The technological changes increased the efficiency of oil-based power plants as well.

D)knowing what proportion of electricity is produced by solar plant or oil-based plant is irrelevant to the concern of this question.

E)The fact that the price of oil is related to viability of exploiting reserves of oil that were not previously worth exploiting is not relevant to concern of this question.

C is the best answer here.

I think a problem with A is the use of the extreme adv "dramatically" which means a great drop in cost of oil. This will lead to an increase in viability constant and not justifies the constant threshold.

Option C use a reasonable wording by mentioning that technological changes increased the efficiency of oil-based plants. The change in oil-based plants is closely identical with the change that is mentioned in the argument about solar energy.

Is C the OA? o.O

amirhakimi wrote:Here is how I answer this CR:

The arguments says that due to some reasons solar energy was more cost-efficient in the last decade but the viability remain constant. According to the argument, viability is the amount of price increase for oil barrel that make solar energy plants more economical than oil-based power plant.

This means, right now oil price should increase 35$ to make solar power plants more efficient than oil-based power plant. This amount doesn't change although solar energy has become more efficient.

We need to provide some justification for this surprise.

A) if the cost of oil has fallen, the constant should be increased and not be constant. This not justifies the surprise but questions the surprise!

B)The raw material cost of equipment is not relevant as far as the cost of equipment is reduced. By the way, this doesn't help to justify the surprise.

C)This option provides a reason for the surprise fact. The technological changes increased the efficiency of oil-based power plants as well.

D)knowing what proportion of electricity is produced by solar plant or oil-based plant is irrelevant to the concern of this question.

E)The fact that the price of oil is related to viability of exploiting reserves of oil that were not previously worth exploiting is not relevant to concern of this question.

C is the best answer here.

Yes. By the way, it's an OG question

This is an explain the paradox/discrepancy question, so it's important to find the central issue before you look at the answers.

On one hand, solar energy has become far more cost-efficient.

On the other hand, the economic threshold has not changed.

How does that make sense? Shouldn't a cost-efficiency improvement in solar energy lower that threshold? Well, not if the same change is occurring on the other side of the equation: the cost efficiency of oil.

C correctly introduces this explanation. The improvements in efficiency for both types of energy cancel each other out, so the balancing point stays the same.

I go for Letter "C"

Solar energy is environment friendly because it produces clean and renewable energy. It is a good alternative to replace fossil fuel as the major energy source because solar power is replaceable at absolutely no cost to supply energy infinitely.