逻辑885--T17--第14题

dreadpower

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.

     这题目里(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)这句话

看的不是很明白，我觉得A也对啊，当然答案C也对。

miejue

The answer should be C.

"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" describes the threshold of economic viability as the discrepancy between the price to which oil should rise so that the new solar power plants is more economical and the price to which oil should rise so that the new oil-fried power plants is more economical.

So pay attention to the exact objections compared here. Now we may find that A is wrong because it neglect the chance that the gap between oil and solar power plant is more than that between oil and oir-fried power plant at which stage the threshold of economic viability increases.

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-10-31 20:39:22编辑过]

八戒

以下是引用miejue在2003-10-31 17:47:00的发言：
So pay attention to the exact objections compared here. Now we may find that A is wrong because it neglect the chance that the gap between oil and solar power plant is more than that between oil and oir-fried power plant at which stage the threshold of economic viability increases.

这段话看得不是很懂！
能解释一下吗？

我的理解是：的确在solar和oil-fired之间有一个gap，这个gap可以通过两种途径来解决。
1、肯定是技术的进步。
2、成本的升高；

题目需要的解释的是：即使solar的技术进步了，但是仍然要比oil-fired更贵！
C当然是答案！
但我觉得A也没错呀！

是不是这边的理解是the cost of oil, not the price of oil.
Although the cost of oil is very cheap, the price of oil can be very expensive, especially in China.

或则：题目已经告诉你the price of oil is not change , so A is contradic to the argument.

Thanks advance!

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-11-1 15:09:53编辑过]

miejue

A refers to the cost of oil is an absolute concept for comparison. How ever, the argument defines the threshold economic viability the price gap which is an relative comparison.

The chance is that the cost of oil drops a lot but the price for the oil drops even sharply where the gap is enlarged. Extremely, even the cost rises, if could be, while the price for the oil drops, the gap could be enlarged only if the price drops more than to the extent which could counteract the cost efficiency of solar system.

Hope it will help to explain.

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-11-1 19:41:00编辑过]