Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater,...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.
Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. |
|
| It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. |
|
| Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by establishing the current uranium supply situation (mining dominance), then introduces a potential alternative (seawater extraction) along with its key limitation (cost exceeds market price), and finally concludes that this alternative won't be commercially viable until costs decrease.
Main Conclusion:
Seawater uranium extraction is unlikely to be commercially viable until extraction costs can be reduced below current market prices.
Logical Structure:
This is a straightforward economic argument: since seawater extraction costs more than uranium sells for, it can't be profitable. The logic relies on the basic business principle that you need revenue to exceed costs for commercial viability.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Evaluate - We need to find information that would help us determine whether the conclusion is valid or not. This means looking for factors that could either strengthen or weaken the argument when we know more about them.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific economic claims: seawater extraction costs more than uranium's market price, making it commercially unviable until costs decrease. We need to evaluate the precision and completeness of this cost-benefit analysis.
Strategy
For evaluate questions, we need to identify key assumptions in the argument and think about what additional information would help us test whether those assumptions are reasonable. We should look for factors that could change our confidence in the conclusion - things that might make seawater extraction more or less viable than the simple cost comparison suggests.
Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted - This is highly relevant to evaluating the argument. If land-based uranium deposits are being depleted rapidly, this would likely cause uranium prices to rise significantly in the near future. When prices rise, seawater extraction could become commercially viable even without cost reductions. This directly tests a key assumption in the argument - that current market price conditions will continue. If we knew deposits were depleting rapidly, we'd be much less confident in the argument's conclusion.
Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined - This information about transportation and logistics doesn't really help us evaluate whether seawater extraction will become commercially viable. The argument is focused on a simple cost-versus-price analysis, and knowing about uranium usage patterns doesn't change the fundamental economic calculation. This is largely irrelevant to the conclusion.
Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater - While this seems relevant at first, the argument already acknowledges that costs could 'somehow be reduced.' The argument's conclusion is specifically conditioned on this possibility. Learning about promising technologies doesn't help us evaluate the logic of the argument itself - it just provides examples of the scenario the argument already considers.
Whether the total amount of uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land - This gives us information about absolute quantities but doesn't help evaluate commercial viability. The argument isn't about whether there's enough uranium in seawater - it's about whether extraction can be profitable. Knowing total amounts doesn't change the cost-benefit analysis that drives the conclusion.
Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater - This introduces a completely different extraction method (freshwater vs. seawater) that isn't part of the original argument. The argument is specifically about seawater extraction, so information about freshwater extraction doesn't help us evaluate the reasoning about seawater extraction's commercial viability.