# Doubt

Discussion in 'The ChitChat Lounge' started by horsesmouth, Aug 27, 2012.

1. ### horsesmouthActive Member

I know this is the wrong forum to talk about this, but I thought it would be best explained by people who don't already know the answer. I saw the answer but could not understand how it came out to be so.
Found this among my verbal questions for GRE study. I have omitted the superfluous details, so here it is:

"Currently, technology that would capture carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and sequester it harmlessly underground or undersea instead of releasing it into the atmosphere might double the cost of generating electricity. But because sequestration does not affect the cost of electricity transmission and distribution, delivered prices will rise less, by no more than 50 percent. "

Question:
The passage implies what about the relation between current cost of generating electricity and the delivered price of electricity?

I would be grateful if you could help me out with this.
Thanks.

2. ### alpha1I BLUES!

It means that say cost of generation of elec = 100.
With new technology it becomes 200.

The cost of transmission & distribution (which has nothing to do with CO2 generation/sequestering) is = x

Yet the overall delivered increase would be 50% only.

1.5*(100 + x) = (200 + x)
solving for x yields 100.

Therefore current cost of generation = 100, but current delivered price of elec = 200.
(double)

GRE is multiple choice - give us the choices ...

horsesmouth likes this.
3. ### horsesmouthActive Member

Fuk amazing!
You're right! So fvcking simple! Even I tried a similar approach, but messed up somewhere in the middle.

Well the question wasn't exactly like this, but I didn't want to distract people by giving an MCQ. Its re-framed.
Thanks!

4. ### bjrLady of the Evening

The only thing I'd draw attention to is the no more than 50% which would imply a relation where alpha1 has shown the maximum possible rise so a less than or equal to rather than just an equal to.

5. ### bjrLady of the Evening

also, hello people...how have the last three months been?

6. ### horsesmouthActive Member

Yes, it was like, cost of delivery is no more than double that of generation.

My 3 months, well, trying hard to catch up to GRE standards.
Where have you been though?

7. ### alpha1I BLUES!

I totally ignored the no more phrase *eeks*, and you've proved your MBA/CAT mettle by placing emphasis on it

Raining.

What was the exact question?
And I am surprised that such questions appear in Verbal ability sections!

8. ### horsesmouthActive Member

This:

"Policymakers must confront the dilemma that fossil fuels continue to be an indispensable source of energy even though burning them produces atmospheric accumulations of carbon dioxide that increase the likelihood of potentially disastrous global climate change. Currently, technology that would capture carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and sequester it harmlessly underground or undersea instead of releasing it into the atmosphere might double the cost of generating electricity. But because sequestration does not affect the cost of electricity transmission and distribution, delivered prices will rise less, by no more than 50 percent. Research into better technologies for capturing carbon dioxide will undoubtedly lead to lowered costs."

The passage implies which of the following about the current cost of generating electricity?

A. It is higher than it would be if better technologies for capturing carbon dioxide were available.
B. It is somewhat less than the cost of electricity transmission and distribution.
C. It constitutes at most half of the delivered price of electricity.
D. It is dwelt on by policymakers to the exclusion of other costs associated with electricity delivery.
E. It is not fully recovered by the prices charged directly to electricity consumers.

I first thought about A, then saw it's wrong, and settled on B. I neglected C entirely because extreme words like 'at most' and specifics like 'half' created a negative impression in my mind. (That's what we'd been taught, of-course I should have been more careful.)

9. ### horsesmouthActive Member

Here I should also write the second question which also stumped me. There were only two.

The passage suggests that extensive use of sequestration would, over time, have which of the following consequences?
(Multiple choice)
A. The burning of fossil fuels would eventually cease to produce atmospheric accumulations of carbon dioxide.
B. The proportion of the delivered price of electricity due to generation would rise and then decline.
C. Power plants would consume progressively lower quantities of fossil fuels.

(My answer: wtf, how? Option A and C don't seen correct, and B doesn't say proportion of delivered price to what. It could be anything. If it was just the value of delivered price, or a proportion of delivered price to cost of (generation minus sequestering), it would undoubtedly be the answer. What does delivered price of electricity due to generation mean anyway?)

10. ### alpha1I BLUES!

"Currently, technology ... might double the cost of generating electricity"

"Research into better technologies for capturing carbon dioxide will undoubtedly lead to lowered costs"

Ergo, first increase, then decrease.

But don't worry, if I were to read this passage under a time constraint, I would perhaps believe the question makers to be idiots.