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.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

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
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget 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
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

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

Technological improvements and reduced

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:18 pm
Thanked: 1 times
by Anon » Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:01 pm
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.












OA C...

why is A wrong ??
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:16 pm

by agent47 » Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:58 am
IMO C

If the effeciency of the power plant with gas increases then there is no need for Solar power plants.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:01 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by svaradhan » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:24 am
What about D - if D is true even that explains why economic viability has not decreased because most of the electricty is not generated by oil-fired power plants. In this case, is 'D' out of scope then? please clarify.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by Mahalo » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:28 pm
I too went for (A) but here is my thinking after seeing your answer.

The argument states that:
(1) The price of the oil has to increase by 35 dollars for the solar power plants to be economically viable.
and the argument also states that:
(2) this threshold level is unchanged.

Therefore something else should have changed, which keeps oil fired power plants more economically viable.

(C) states that "the efficiency of the oil fired power plants have increased", which is a possible solution.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 3 times

by NSNguyen » Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:37 pm
I also prefer C to A,
When A state paralellism comparing with solar efficient improvement.
:-/
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Philippines
Thanked: 3 times

by fighting_cax » Fri May 15, 2009 10:12 pm
Mahalo wrote:I too went for (A) but here is my thinking after seeing your answer.

The argument states that:
(1) The price of the oil has to increase by 35 dollars for the solar power plants to be economically viable.
and the argument also states that:
(2) this threshold level is unchanged.

Therefore something else should have changed, which keeps oil fired power plants more economically viable.

(C) states that "the efficiency of the oil fired power plants have increased", which is a possible solution.
An "increased efficiency" of oil-fired power plant doesn't necessarily mean an improvement in cost, right? Choice A explicity states that oil prices have dropped. With COSTS being the prime concern for an energy source to be used, doesn't choice A make the the prospect of using solar energy less attractive (since oil, which is already cheaper, have become even "more" cheaper)?

Please explain.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:740

by 2010gmat » Fri May 15, 2009 10:41 pm
let us say earlier it used to cost $50 to get 1 unit of power using solar power system....and one barrel of oil costing $20 produced 1 unit of energy....

oil wud have to rise to $50 per barrel so that we cud switch to solar power...or solar power wud have to fall to $20 to make the switch economically viable...

Now if Oil prices have fallen dramatically!!!
we were getting 1 unit from $20 of oil...lets say oil prices have fallen to $5 per barrel .... and now we are getting 1 unit from oil power for $5 ...

Also solar power has become more efficient...say now we are getting 2 units of energy from $ 50 using solar power...this means 1 unit for $25 ... in this case solar power wud have to fall to $5 or oil wud have to rise to $25 ....
SO you can see THRESHOLD HAS CHANGED....BUT ACCORDING TO STIMULI THRESHOLD REMAINS UNCHANGED...

sO wat wud have happened..??

now with increased efficiency..we can get 2 units of energy from solar power and it still costs us $50 ....

As the stimuli says the threshold remains the same....
wat if oil power plants have become efficient ... earlier we were getting 1 unit from $20 ...NOW WE GET 2 UNITS USING $20 ...???

in this case..either solar power drops to $20 or oil rises to $50 .... threshold remains the same...

Important thing in this question is THRESHOLD....thats wat makes it confusing....hope it helps...
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:05 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by manishpal » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:31 am
reply by gmatdetroyer.i find it helpful.pls read it carefully...


let us say earlier it used to cost $50 to get 1 unit of power using solar power system....and one barrel of oil costing $20 produced 1 unit of energy....

oil wud have to rise to $50 per barrel so that we cud switch to solar power...or solar power wud have to fall to $20 to make the switch economically viable...

Now if Oil prices have fallen dramatically!!!
we were getting 1 unit from $20 of oil...lets say oil prices have fallen to $5 per barrel .... and now we are getting 1 unit from oil power for $5 ...

Also solar power has become more efficient...say now we are getting 2 units of energy from $ 50 using solar power...this means 1 unit for $25 ... in this case solar power wud have to fall to $5 or oil wud have to rise to $25 ....
SO you can see THRESHOLD HAS CHANGED....BUT ACCORDING TO STIMULI THRESHOLD REMAINS UNCHANGED...

sO wat wud have happened..??

now with increased efficiency..we can get 2 units of energy from solar power and it still costs us $50 ....

As the stimuli says the threshold remains the same....
wat if oil power plants have become efficient ... earlier we were getting 1 unit from $20 ...NOW WE GET 2 UNITS USING $20 ...???

in this case..either solar power drops to $20 or oil rises to $50 .... threshold remains the same...

Important thing in this question is THRESHOLD....thats wat makes it confusing....hope it helps...
agent47 wrote:IMO C

If the effeciency of the power plant with gas increases then there is no need for Solar power plants.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:46 am

by karthi_crazy_mit » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:11 am
can anyone explain each of the options in detail ?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:24 pmFollowed by: 6 members
Thanked: 37 times

by navami » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:40 am
A. Consider the oil price has fallen drastically. if the impact is only with oil price then why the comparison is made with the new -oil fired plants. We have to take care of that our answer do not act against any of the premises.
This time no looking back!!!
Navami
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1