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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 小弟資質愚鈍不解答案為何是A，這題做了快10分鐘...超難選擇答案最後選了E 再回過頭看A，我的理解A:購買低成本無法保證帶來經濟利益(不知道這大意對不對) 可是原文我找不到一個conclusion明確表明low quality就是不實用 只有隱性的自己心裡認為這個low quality不實用，與其說support，我怎麼覺得這題更 像assumption? 請大大指教! --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 1.170.196.226 ※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/GMAT/M.1448223748.A.32F.html ※ 編輯: heystranger (1.170.196.226), 11/23/2015 04:27:43