Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton delivered than for high-quality coal. Yet more low-quality coalthan high-quality coal must be burned to generate the same amount of electricity. Moreover, per ton of coal burned,low-quality coal generates more ash than does high-quality coal, and the disposal of ash is becoming more and more expensive. The considerations above, if true, most strongly support which of the following claims? (A) A coal-burning utility might not be assured of benefiting economically by always adhering to the policy of keeping its overall coal purchasing costs as low as possible. (B) In those regions where the cost of disposing of coal ash is negligible, it is more expensive for coal-burning utilities to use high-quality coal than low-quality coal. (C) Transportation costs represent a smaller proportion of the cost per delivered ton for low-quality coal than for high-quality coal. (D) It is no less expensive to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of high-quality coal than it is to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of low-quality coal. (E) In regions where coal-ash disposal is the least expensive, reserves of low-quality coal are likely to decline at a faster rate than are reserves of high-quality coal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 小弟资质愚钝不解答案为何是A，这题做了快10分钟...超难选择答案最後选了E 再回过头看A，我的理解A:购买低成本无法保证带来经济利益(不知道这大意对不对) 可是原文我找不到一个conclusion明确表明low quality就是不实用 只有隐性的自己心里认为这个low quality不实用，与其说support，我怎麽觉得这题更 像assumption? 请大大指教! --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 1.170.196.226 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/GMAT/M.1448223748.A.32F.html ※ 编辑: heystranger (1.170.196.226), 11/23/2015 04:27:43