Most of the world's supply of uranium

[jnelson0612]

Great!

[yuvraj.sub]

Hi Ron,

Digging up an old thread. I was able to narrow down the choices to A and B.

I eventually ended up choosing B, though I couldn't clearly justify both. My opinion swung in favor of B, because the stimulus states "world market price", and I thought well world market price refers to the uranium cost(i.e export price), and if the uranium is being used close to where it is mined(i.e. in the same country), then we don't really care about the world market price.


Although, I can see A does effect the argument, I can't really get rid of B. Can you please help? Thanks a ton!

Regards,
Yuvraj

[RonPurewal]

then we don't really care about the world market price.

Several sketchy things about this reasoning.

First, this assumption that "close" = "in the same country". That's already highly questionable reasoning. (If uranium were mined in, say, Jordan, then there are lots and lots of other countries that are very close.)

More importantly, the "world market price" is the average price level in the entire world for the stuff. It's impossible to "not really care" about that, because it's the entire world market.
Even if your assumption were to hold -- i.e., if the good were exclusively produced and used within a single country (a notion that's a bit farfetched in today's economy) -- then "the world market" would still exist; it would just be the market within that country.

(Remember that the problems don't use inappropriate or misleading language. If the passage talks about a world market, then you can go ahead and assume that the good is traded internationally.)

[yuvraj.sub]

Thanks a lot Ron! You are a rockstar. :)

[tim]

He certainly is! :)

[asfandk938]

Hi Ron,

Apologies for opening up a really old thread.

I read your explanation around why D is wrong and around how "Evaluate" questions should be tackled in a way similar to how "Strengthen" and "Weaken" questions are tackled but I still have a question around the answer choice.

In a case where the amount of Uranium extracted from seawater is significantly higher than the amount of Uranium extracted from land to the point that the cost per pound (or kg, or whatever measure) of Uranium extracted from seawater is the same or lower than the cost per pound extracted from land or vice versa, wouldnt the former condition strengthen and latter condition weaken the argument? Or am I assuming to much and really stretching my reasoning?

Thanks for all the help. This forum has helped me tremendously in the GMAT preparation.

Regards,
Asfand

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Glad to hear that you find this forum useful.

I'm not sure that I fully understand your question. You're asking if "the amount of Uranium extracted from seawater is significantly higher than the amount of Uranium extracted from land" would strengthen the argument? Let's be clear what the argument is claiming. The conclusion of the argument is 'until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable'. I.e. this is a prediction about the future; it would be useful to consider some things that might change in the future. For that reason, I can't see how the "condition" that you mention (if I've identified it correctly) will affect the conclusion.

You also ask whether the condition that "the cost per pound (or kg, or whatever measure) of Uranium extracted from seawater is the same or lower than the cost per pound extracted from land or vice versa" would weaken the argument. I don't think so, as this repeats what we're already told in the argument, that extracting uranium from seawater is currently more expensive than extracting it from mines.

I encourage you to practice your critical thinking when you read an argument like this one. Think 'does that have to be true? what other things might affect it? what other explanations can I imagine?'. These are questions that I'm sure you ask yourself in other contexts, such as when you're having an argument with friends or family. When I read this argument my first thought was 'sure, it looks like extracting Uranium from seawater is expensive, but what if the price of Uranium changes? What if Uranium becomes really expensive? Then it would be worth extracting it from seawater, even at this high cost. That would make the conclusion false.' That helped me be in a well-prepared state of mind to see which answers were relevant or irrelevant.

[asfandk938]

Thanks for the explanation Sage.

Looking back at the question now, i am not sure why i was trying to differentiate between total cost vs cost per unit of Uranium when the argument clearly states that extracting Uranium from seawater is currently more expensive than extracting it from mines.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

You're welcome. Also, no need to repost my post in your reply.

[JbhB682]

Hi Emily - on option B -- i thought i got two branches (one weakening / one strengthening) when talking about transportation costs specifically (not price) when selling to near countries vs. far away countries.

Most of the uranium is used near where it is mined :

This allows me to assume that I sell within the same country or neighboring countries only.

Thus, transport costs will be lower. Lower costs weaken the argument.

Most of the uranium is NOT used near where it is mined :

This means transportation cost will be high. This strengthens the argument

[JbhB682]

Hi - With option A,

If the answer is YES, that the uranium in land deposits is rapidly decreasing = I don't see how this weakens the conclusion specifically

I don't see how this will make the prospect of sea water extraction more "commercially viable"

(Commercially viable to me means profitable)

Even if all the uranium on land deposits disappeared overnight , sea water extraction WILL STILL not be profitable (or commercially viable) .

I keep reading that Prices will rise but is that not a hopeful assumption ?

For one, we can just keep importing uranium at world market prices, thereby compensating for the loss of uranium from mines.

[esledge]

First identify exactly what argument is to be evaluated: until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

So the argument is only concerned with the economic viability of extracting uranium from seawater.
For (A):
If uranium in deposits on land ARE rapidly being depleted: more expensive or impossible to mine, so extracting uranium from seawater becomes more economically viable in comparison. (Weakens conclusion)
If uranium in deposits on land ARE NOT rapidly being depleted: then nothing has changed and mining will likely continue to be the preferred method. (Strengthens conclusion)

For (B), you are having to make more assumptions about what “used near where it is mined” implies. (You even used the word “assume” about selling within same country or neighboring countries.) And that’s the danger—what if most of the uranium is not used near where it is mined, but uranium is light and easy to transport? Thus your assumption that transportation costs will be high is not justified. When it's unclear how a choice could affect the argument, it's just wrong. (When I start telling myself a story with "if .... then..." in it, I know I'm on the wrong track.)

Also, just want to point out that you didn’t like (A) because:

Hi - With option A,
If the answer is YES, that the uranium in land deposits is rapidly decreasing = I don't see how this weakens the conclusion specifically
I don't see how this will make the prospect of sea water extraction more "commercially viable"
(Commercially viable to me means profitable)
Even if all the uranium on land deposits disappeared overnight , sea water extraction WILL STILL not be profitable (or commercially viable) .

…but that’s exactly how you were justifying (B): namely, if costs of mining are high, it’s relatively better to extract from seawater.

[JbhB682]

Hi Emily - thank you for following up

When you said the statement in the blue font below in response to my question

As a test taker - can I infer that Prices Increasing for uranium extracted from seawater is the REASON why this process is NOW going to be economically viable ?

Is that a fair assumption to make OR is that too much of a stretch ?

First identify exactly what argument is to be evaluated: until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

So the argument is only concerned with the economic viability of extracting uranium from seawater.
For (A):
If uranium in deposits on land ARE rapidly being depleted: more expensive or impossible to mine, so extracting uranium from seawater becomes more economically viable in comparison. (Weakens conclusion)
If uranium in deposits on land ARE NOT rapidly being depleted: then nothing has changed and mining will likely continue to be the preferred method. (Strengthens conclusion)

[esledge]

As a test taker - can I infer that Prices Increasing for uranium extracted from seawater is the REASON why this process is NOW going to be economically viable ?

Is that a fair assumption to make OR is that too much of a stretch ?

I don't know that it's too much of a stretch (what you describe is possible), but it is more of a stretch than just inferring that rapid depletion of uranium on land will affect the cost to mine it from land. Think of the supply chain: mines/source of uranium-->cost to mine-->amount of supply to be sold-->the market buys the supply. Your assumption goes two or three steps, whereas you can justify the answer with just one step. Generally, try to take the minimum steps necessary.