Thread: C Vs. E

OA is C Thanks guys!

Quote: Originally Posted by snv85 Need more explanations as to y have you negated E nverma or reply2spg pls answer E just says the current market is small, and it will grow..BUT why "United States manufacturers will probably maintain significant production levels", only when if they will have gud market,,and if european guys are their ,they can also..have a bigger share..what can stop them..Option C explains this,,

Don't understand why E. IMO C....

i will go with E

Has to be E: as it clearly states.. if the market is limited.. and if the initiatives undertaken by the govt succeed, then the mnfrs. would be justified in keeping high level of production. In c: it talks abt vague European advantages and says US also has those advantages. hence the need to keep high level of production.. so C is out what is the OA ???

C Since European companies have captured European market due to competative advantage,United States manufacturers will maintain significant production levels only if their product has significant demand somewhere else (e.g.in US)...what if European companies start selling product in US market..? There has to be some competetive advantage for US companies over european rivals.

IMO E Fine line tells us that most of the produced generators are exported to Europe than used in US market. That clearly points out that US market is limited currently.If europeans emerge in manufacturing these ,the demand for US generators in european markets would reduce.Hence US has started new initiatives to increase the demand within United states. To eliminate C we are talking about US initiatives and how these impact US markets which...

I most humbly and respectfully would go for E E suggests that there is huge potential for future demands for solar generator in the US as the current demand is very low. This premise supports the conclusion that United States manufacturers will probably maintain significant production levels