Critical Reasoning

Which of the following best completes the passage?

Hydraulic rescue tools, colloquially known as Jaws of Life, are used by emergency response personnel to remove crash victims from damaged vehicles. Hydraulic tools have often completely replaced traditional tools, such as crowbars and circular saws, which could cause additional structural damage or create sparks. Emergency response workers prefer hydraulic tools, not only because they are less frightening to crash victims, but also because

A One hydraulic rescue tool can perform the functions of both a crowbar and a circular saw.
B Hydraulic tools are quieter and do not cause crash victims to panic.
C Hydraulic tools are unlikely to complicate an already dangerous situation in the way that more traditional tools often did.
D Hydraulic tools are able to quickly and efficiently repair structural damage to vehicles involved in collisions.
E Emergency response workers have greater leverage when using hydraulic tools than when using traditional tools, such as crowbars and circular saws.

my concern: in a question like this, i feel that all we need is to present a logical advantage of "Hydraulic tools" . E presents us with one such advantage so why can't we take is as an answer?

ALSO in a construction "not only ...but also..." we need to mention two similar but independent ideas that reinforces the concept of "advantage of Hydraulic tools". i feel that C is committing the mistake of reiterating the same idea in a construction "not only ....but also...", after all something that is "less frightening to crash victims" is obviously "unlikely to complicate an already dangerous situation"

aditya8062 wrote:Which of the following best completes the passage?

Hydraulic rescue tools, colloquially known as Jaws of Life, are used by emergency response personnel to remove crash victims from damaged vehicles. Hydraulic tools have often completely replaced traditional tools, such as crowbars and circular saws, which could cause additional structural damage or create sparks. Emergency response workers prefer hydraulic tools, not only because they are less frightening to crash victims, but also because

A One hydraulic rescue tool can perform the functions of both a crowbar and a circular saw.
B Hydraulic tools are quieter and do not cause crash victims to panic.
C Hydraulic tools are unlikely to complicate an already dangerous situation in the way that more traditional tools often did.
D Hydraulic tools are able to quickly and efficiently repair structural damage to vehicles involved in collisions.
E Emergency response workers have greater leverage when using hydraulic tools than when using traditional tools, such as crowbars and circular saws.

my concern: in a question like this, i feel that all we need is to present a logical advantage of "Hydraulic tools" . E presents us with one such advantage so why can't we take is as an answer?

ALSO in a construction "not only ...but also..." we need to mention two similar but independent ideas that reinforces the concept of "advantage of Hydraulic tools". i feel that C is committing the mistake of reiterating the same idea in a construction "not only ....but also...", after all something that is "less frightening to crash victims" is obviously "unlikely to complicate an already dangerous situation"

This question could be a little tighter. The passage in combination with the OA create a paragraph that contains somewhat repetitive statements.

Still, maybe here is the logic you are seeking.

A) This adds new information not contained in the paragraph and does not really continue the line of thinking that is being developed in the paragraph. So this is probably not the answer.

B) This is basically a repetition of the first half of the sentence and is therefore easy to eliminate.

C) While this is to a degree a repetition of the statement that hydraulic tools don't cause additional structural damage or create sparks, and yes, it could be seen as in a way reiterating what has already been said about scaring people, it does add something new that follows from the information we already have and it continues the line of thinking of the rest of the paragraph. Keep for now.

D) Repair is not the concern of the rescue workers. This is easy to eliminate.

E) This provides new information not derived from information already given and goes off on a whole new idea rather than continuing the general line of thought of the paragraph. So even though it could possibly fit in the real world, it is not the best GMAT answer.

Choose C.

I agree with you in that the "not only" and "but also" imply 2 reasons why emergency response workers PREFER hydraulic tools. But we can't just accept any old logical reason. The correct reason should have something to do with the first two sentences of the passage -- otherwise, why do they exist?

A good prediction might be something similar to the fact that they do not "cause additional structural damage" like those older tools, "crowbars and circular saws."

I know what you're saying in that C seems repetitious, but that isn't a valid reason to eliminate a GMAT answer choice. The reason to eliminate an answer choice is that it is strongly NOT DOING the job of the question. I don't LOVE this question, and I don't believe it's an official question, but I think the takeaway is that the correct CR answer cannot just be something logical out-of-thin-air. There are 3 sentences in the premise, so it wouldn't make sense to include the first 2 unless they are going to strongly affect the correct answer.

Hope this helps!