Cost of buidling nuclear reactors

[pareekbharat86]

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.

[gcanyon]

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.

[pareekbharat86]

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.

[[email protected]]

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