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

Redeem

GMATPrep5

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

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] » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:54 pm
Hi akhilsuhag,

For this CR question, we're asked to find an answer that EXPLAINS the given situation.

We're told:
1) NEW solar power plants are cheaper (due to tech improvements and reduced equipment costs) and converting solar energy into electricity is far more cost-efficient than before.
2) The threshold to choose NEW solar power PLANTS instead of NEW oil-fired PLANTS is UNCHANGED (the 35 dollars isn't really relevant; what IS relevant is that it's the same as it was before).

So, we need an answer that accounts for the fact that new solar power PLANTS are cheaper than ever before BUT new solar power isn't any more economically viable than before... In other words, how can the threshold stay the same if it's now cheaper to produce solar power???

As a prediction, the only thing that I can think of is that it's now somehow cheaper to produce oil-fired PLANTS TOO.

Which answer states that? C

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:25 pm
Thanked: 57 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhilsuhag » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:03 am
Hey Rich,

Thanks for replying.I was fairly confused between A and C in this one. A says Oil prices crashed- which would that not have a similar effect?

Just wanted to know why not A.
Please press "thanks" if you think my post has helped you.. Cheers!!
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:58 am
Thanked: 2 times

by kutlee » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:17 am
While i don't think answer is A, I don't think it is still 'C' either. Because the statement says that new technology has made solar to electricity 'COST EFFICIENT'. Answer choice C states that EFFICIENCY of oil powered plants has increased. Is this Cost efficiency, transmission efficiency. We can assume that all efficiencies lead to cost efficiency.
Option E rather leads to very long assumption. Increased cost - promotes further exploration - increases supply - leads to price crash. Just like current oil prices. This may be another way of stating A.

A has a problem. Even though oil prices have fallen, we don't know whether other costs such as labour, materials etc have increased so that threshold remains high.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:12 am
Thanked: 1 times

@Kutlee: Response

by ddg » Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:56 am
The choices are definitely narrowed down to A) and C). The problem arises in choosing which among st the two.
------------
Lets have a look at
A) The prices have fallen dramatically - For this to happen, means, that oil has become cheaper than it already was (it is cheaper than solar energy) - But none of the statements made in the argument point us towards the dropping price of oil.
C) Now, it becomes easier to choose C) via elimination. If one has eliminated A) the choice is obviously C). But if we think about it - The argument says the threshold economic viability between solar power and oil remains unchanged. This can mean the amount of energy generated by solar energy isn't useful enough even though cost of production/conversion has reduced. On the other hand, the word 'New' is a clue. 'New oil fired plants' which means these new ones are more efficient for some reason, one of them can be Technological Advances. So if one is confused about A). Thinking about C) this way can bring us closer to the answer as well :)
So, Answer is C.
I hope this helps.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1