Critical Reasoning

Dear All,

Regarding below strengthen the argument question; i have few doubts on the OA- let me know what you think:

Q32 (Verbal Diagnostic Test):

For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There has been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving. The city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

(A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is nota significant threatto Palitito's buildings.
(B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust.
(C) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.
(D) More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation.
(E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.

The OA choice is C.

The official guide argument for the above answer is as follows:

The argument that the official guide presents is that the statement of answer choice C "properly cites a factor that supports the argument: since most of the buses' time has been spent producing damaging exhaust, the new parking should reduce the damage significantly".

My argument/reasoning as i was solving was as follows :

Does answer choice C really mean that the buses spend most of the time producing damaging exhaust?
Even though less than one quarter of the time was spent transporting passenger, you could still argue that the remaining time was not necessarly spent engine idling next to the curb of bus stops. It could have been that most of the remaining time was spent parked somewhere in Palitito while the engine was switched off (for example, when the bus is parked outside the hotel accommodation in Palitito at night time).

It seems me that answer choice C simply did not provide sufficient information to strengthen the argument.

Let me know what you guys think.

BR ,
MJ

Premise: Buildings damaged by exhaust from tour buses
Premise: Limited parking space, so buses idle and idling produces as much exhaust as driving

Conclusion: Additional parking space for tour buses -> less idling -> less damage

A. Out of scope (few automobiles and not tour buses in particular" - generalization)

B. Argument says idling produces as much idling as driving - so this ans isn't valid

C. Tour buses spend less time driving, therefore "potentially" more time idling -> exhaust. From premise, not enough parking spots are available for buses at this point, BUT with new parking spots, 1/3rd of the buses can park which will potentially reduce the exhaust.

D. Argument is concerned about tour buses, other means are out of scope

E. Conclusion is about parking which leads to reduction in exhaust and not about driving, so doesn't strengthen the conclusion

Q: Where did you take the verbal diagnostic test? I mean what is the source for this question...

Thanks Buzz,

I understand your analogy. Its true that with answer choice C, you could "potentially" infer that tour buses will spend alot of time idling.

THe question here is: For GMAT CR "strengthen the argument" questions, could you pick an answer because it could "potentially" strengthen an argument?


Look forward to feedback.

Thanks and BR,
MJ.

It's similar to weaken the question...we don't have to destroy the conclusion, an answer that mildly weakens should suffice. The same is applicable for strengthen questions.

And you can always confirm using PoE method and / or quick negation technique. If you negate answer choice C, it weakens the argument.


Some tips from PowerScore CR Bible on how to Strengthen an Argument -

1. Identify the conclusion - This is what you are strengthening. Help the author's conclusion.
2. Personalize the argument - Helps assess the strength of each answer because I am seeing the argument in a very involved perspective
3. Look for weaknesses in the argument - Sometimes they are tailor-made for correct answers. The correct answer would ELIMINATE the weakness. Close any hole or gap in the argument. Find the missing link between a premise and a conclusion.
4. Arguments that contain analogies or surveys rely upon the validity of those analogies and surveys - any answer choices that strengthen the analogy or survey or establishes their soundness, are usually correct.
5. Remember it can strengthen by a little bit or by a lot which makes these type of questions difficult.

Hope this helps...

mjabki wrote:Dear All,

Regarding below strengthen the argument question; i have few doubts on the OA- let me know what you think:

Q32 (Verbal Diagnostic Test):

For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There has been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving. The city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

(A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is nota significant threatto Palitito's buildings.
(B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust.
(C) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.
(D) More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation.
(E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.

The OA choice is C.

The official guide argument for the above answer is as follows:

The argument that the official guide presents is that the statement of answer choice C "properly cites a factor that supports the argument: since most of the buses' time has been spent producing damaging exhaust, the new parking should reduce the damage significantly".

My argument/reasoning as i was solving was as follows :

Does answer choice C really mean that the buses spend most of the time producing damaging exhaust?
Even though less than one quarter of the time was spent transporting passenger, you could still argue that the remaining time was not necessarly spent engine idling next to the curb of bus stops. It could have been that most of the remaining time was spent parked somewhere in Palitito while the engine was switched off (for example, when the bus is parked outside the hotel accommodation in Palitito at night time).

It is stated as a PREMISE -- as a fact that CANNOT BE DISPUTED -- that there has been LITTLE PARKING SPACE for the MANY TOUR BUSES.
Since there has been LITTLE parking space for the MANY tour buses, tour buses in Palitito must have spent a majority of their time either driving around the city or idling in place.
It is also stated that driving and idling produce comparable amounts of exhaust.
The argument links the increase in parking accommodations to a SIGNIFICANT decrease in the amount of damage caused by the buses' exhaust.
The ASSUMPTION is that a SIGNIFICANT amount of exhaust results from IDLING: if tour buses are rarely idle -- if they spend most of their time driving around the city -- then the new parking accommodations will have little effect on the amount of exhaust produced.
Answer choice C strengthens the assumption that a SIGNIFICANT amount of exhaust results from idling:
Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.
In other words, tour buses spend a majority of their time not driving but IDLING.

The correct answer is C.

GMATGuruNY wrote:
It is stated as a PREMISE -- as a fact that CANNOT BE DISPUTED -- that there has been LITTLE PARKING SPACE for the MANY TOUR BUSES.
Since there has been LITTLE parking space for the MANY tour buses, tour buses in Palitito must have spent a majority of their time either driving around the city or idling in place.
It is also stated that driving and idling produce comparable amounts of exhaust.
The argument links the increase in parking accommodations to a SIGNIFICANT decrease in the amount of damage caused by the buses' exhaust.
The ASSUMPTION is that a SIGNIFICANT amount of exhaust results from IDLING: if tour buses are rarely idle -- if they spend most of their time driving around the city -- then the new parking accommodations will have little effect on the amount of exhaust produced.
Answer choice C strengthens the assumption that a SIGNIFICANT amount of exhaust results from idling:
Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.
In other words, tour buses spend a majority of their time not driving but IDLING.

The correct answer is C.

Dear GuruNY

I understand the reasoning for C. But I am very confused for B. Since pollution is not part of the argument, many say that this option is easily eliminated. When I was solving the question, my thought- was that " there was no other way that the buildings could be damaged" and when I got option B I marked it. Now my question

Is B wrong for mentioning the pollution specifically? Were the option "Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by anything other than engine exhaust.", would it be the correct answer?

I am asking you this question because I have got many strengthen questions in which correct answers eliminate the possibility of other way of happening things.

Please help me.

Md Raihan Uddin wrote:
Dear GuruNY

I understand the reasoning for C. But I am very confused for B. Since pollution is not part of the argument, many say that this option is easily eliminated. When I was solving the question, my thought- was that " there was no other way that the buildings could be damaged" and when I got option B I marked it. Now my question

Is B wrong for mentioning the pollution specifically? Were the option "Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by anything other than engine exhaust.", would it be the correct answer?

I am asking you this question because I have got many strengthen questions in which correct answers eliminate the possibility of other way of happening things.

Please help me.

The conclusion is about only ONE TYPE of damage: damage to Palitito's buildings FROM THE BUSES' EXHAUST.
Threats from other types of damage are irrelevant.

I don't understand why the answer is not E. If like the guru said "driving and idling produce comparable amounts of exhaust" and the building damage is coming from tour bus exhaust, E is strengthening the argument that parking will help because there is currently limited parking (from passage) and therefore they drive around according to E so parking will help.

KristenH88 wrote:I don't understand why the answer is not E. If like the guru said "driving and idling produce comparable amounts of exhaust" and the building damage is coming from tour bus exhaust, E is strengthening the argument that parking will help because there is currently limited parking (from passage) and therefore they drive around according to E so parking will help.

First- "some" is a big clue for you to eliminate the choice in strengthen and weaken question. Because you can't define "some".

second- Argument is concerned about the buses which remain idle.
Parking space may help the running buses to park and thereby reduce damage. But what about those idling buses? I am concerned about them. I am not sure whether idling buses are getting space or not.