Twenty years ago, Balzania put in place regulations requiring operators of surface mines to pay for the reclamation of mined-out...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Paradox

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Twenty years ago, Balzania put in place regulations requiring operators of surface mines to pay for the reclamation of mined-out land. Since then, reclamation technology has not improved. Yet, the average reclamation cost for a surface coal mine being reclaimed today is only four dollars per ton of coal that the mine produced, less than half what it cost to reclaim surface mines in the years immediately after the regulations took effect.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to account for the drop in reclamation costs described?

Even after Balzania began requiring surface mine operators to pay reclamation costs, coal mines in Balzania continued to be less expensive to operate than coal mines in almost any other country.

In the twenty years since the regulations took effect, the use of coal as a fuel has declined from the level it was at in the previous twenty years.

Mine operators have generally ceased surface mining in the mountainous areas of Balzania because reclamation costs per ton of coal produced are particularly high for mines in such areas.

Even after Balzania began requiring surface mine operators to pay reclamation costs, surface mines continued to produce coal at a lower total cost than underground mines.

As compared to twenty years ago, a greater percentage of the coal mined in Balzania today comes from surface mines.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Twenty years ago, Balzania put in place regulations requiring operators of surface mines to pay for the reclamation of mined-out land.	What it says: Balzania made mining companies pay for cleaning up their old mine sites starting 20 years ago What it does: Sets up the background context and timeline for the situation What it is: Author's factual premise Visualization: Timeline: 20 years ago → Regulation starts (mining companies must pay cleanup costs)
Since then, reclamation technology has not improved.	What it says: The cleanup technology stayed exactly the same over these 20 years What it does: Establishes that tech improvements can't explain any cost changes What it is: Author's factual premise Visualization: Technology level: 20 years ago = Today (no change)
Yet, the average reclamation cost for a surface coal mine being reclaimed today is only four dollars per ton of coal that the mine produced, less than half what it cost to reclaim surface mines in the years immediately after the regulations took effect.	What it says: Cleanup costs dropped from over $8 per ton to $4 per ton, even though technology didn't improve What it does: Presents the puzzling situation that needs explaining - costs went down without tech improvements What it is: Author's factual premise establishing the mystery Visualization: Cost per ton: 20 years ago > $8 → Today $4 (more than 50% decrease)

Argument Flow:

We start with background info about regulations, then learn technology hasn't changed, and finally discover the surprising cost drop that needs explanation

Main Conclusion:

There's no explicit conclusion - this passage presents a puzzle that needs to be explained

Logical Structure:

This is a 'explain the phenomenon' setup where premises establish a surprising situation (costs dropped despite no tech improvements) that the question asks us to account for

Prethinking:

Question type:
Paradox - We need to explain how reclamation costs dropped by more than half even though technology didn't improve. This creates a puzzle that needs resolving.

Precision of Claims
The argument makes very specific quantitative claims: costs dropped from over $8 per ton to exactly $4 per ton (more than 50% decrease), technology has not improved at all, and this happened over a 20-year period since regulations took effect.

Strategy
For paradox questions, we need to find explanations that resolve the apparent contradiction. The puzzle is: if technology didn't improve, why did costs drop so dramatically? We should look for alternative factors that could reduce costs without technological advancement, such as changes in mining practices, economies of scale, different types of mines being reclaimed, or operational efficiencies.

Answer Choices Explained

Even after Balzania began requiring surface mine operators to pay reclamation costs, coal mines in Balzania continued to be less expensive to operate than coal mines in almost any other country.

This tells us that Balzanian coal mines remained cheaper to operate than those in other countries, but this doesn't explain why reclamation costs specifically dropped within Balzania over the 20-year period. We're looking for what changed to cause the cost reduction, not a comparison to other countries that stayed constant.

In the twenty years since the regulations took effect, the use of coal as a fuel has declined from the level it was at in the previous twenty years.

The decline in coal fuel usage doesn't directly explain why the per-ton reclamation cost decreased. Whether coal demand is high or low, the cost to reclaim each ton of previously mined coal should remain the same if technology hasn't improved. This addresses market demand rather than reclamation efficiency.

Mine operators have generally ceased surface mining in the mountainous areas of Balzania because reclamation costs per ton of coal produced are particularly high for mines in such areas.

This perfectly explains the cost drop! If mining companies stopped operating in mountainous areas where reclamation costs are particularly high per ton, then the average reclamation cost would naturally decrease. The companies are now primarily reclaiming mines from easier, less expensive areas. This changes the mix of what's being reclaimed without requiring any technological improvement.

Even after Balzania began requiring surface mine operators to pay reclamation costs, surface mines continued to produce coal at a lower total cost than underground mines.

Like Choice A, this compares surface mines to underground mines but doesn't explain the change in surface mine reclamation costs over time. The relationship between surface and underground mining costs doesn't address why surface mine reclamation specifically became cheaper.

As compared to twenty years ago, a greater percentage of the coal mined in Balzania today comes from surface mines.

If a greater percentage of coal now comes from surface mines, this might actually suggest that reclamation should be more expensive overall (since surface mining requires more reclamation). This doesn't help explain why reclamation costs per ton decreased - if anything, it suggests they should have increased.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...