BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Assumption

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:07 am
Thanked: 2 times

Assumption

by beater » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:17 am
In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?


(A) Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction.

(B) The government prefers leasing facilities to owning them in cases where the two alternatives are equally cost-effective.

(C) If facilities available for leasing come very close to meeting the government's requirements for facilities the government needs, the government can relax its own requirements slightly and consider those facilities in compliance.

(D) The government's construction projects would not, on being completed, add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned.

(E) Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are more cost-effective.

Please support your answers with a brief explanation. Thanks!

OA - A
Last edited by beater on Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:54 am
govt carrying on a construction project despite high office vacancy rates.
vacant offices do not meet the needs of the govt.
conclusion: gvt not wasteful

A)negation test: even if leasing was more cost effective to construction, govt could still have been wasteful.

B) out of scope. govts preference for leasing does not make the govt not wasteful

C)incorrect as contradicts the premise that the offices do not meet the govts requirements

D) correct: negation test: if the new constructions add to the stock of vacant offices, then the govt spends with no return-govt is wasteful. argument falls apart.

E) too general, the most costeffective alternative can turn out to be wasteful if there are no buyers

hence D
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:10 pm
Thanked: 10 times
GMAT Score:600

by dendude » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:37 pm
I would choose A.
A identifies an alternative course and establishes that as a non-possibility.
Modifying the offices to the Govt's specifications will not be cost-effective and would hence justify the Govt's spending.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:56 am

by Musicolo » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:21 pm
must be D
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:12 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by matterover » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:27 am
good qn.
I go for
D)

Here
In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

Government is building new offices despite a high office vacancy in cities.
These vacant offices do not meet the requirements of court houses and labs, hence the new construction will meet the requirements of court houses and hence the government is not guilty.

Key here is the vacant offices are built by someone else and ill suited for the requirements. govt is constructing new buildings to suit the requirements.

Assumption : Attack assumption as weaken questions and then negate the weaken part to reach the assumption.
What would weaken the arguement that government is not guilty of fiscal wastefulness.

a) Either the vacant offices could be remodelled to suit the requirements OF COURT HOUSES AND LABS instead of new construction. -- hence the government is indeed wasting money on new construction instead of re-modeling, only ifff the cost of new construction is way more than the cost of re-modelling.

b) the new construction is similar to the old construction and will not suit the requirrements of court houses / labs .. in which case the govt is again indeed wasting money by adding this new constructions to the already existing vacant pool.

Answers..
Option A) is a very close choice, but mind the scope and qualifiers appearing in the answers...the adaptation of the spaces to WHAT? not the government requirements, but the COURT HOUSES AND LABS etc..this is not a government requirements.. ALSO LEASING those spaces may be cost effective, but what abt the COST TO REMODEL. May be the cost to remodel itself would be very high.
THis choice is out.

D) fits without any ambiguity after ruling out A.
the new construction will suit the requirements of the court house / labs and hence will not add to the pool of existing vacant spaces.

Hope it helps.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Azerbaijan/Baku
Thanked: 2 times

by S0laris » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:13 am
D and E are tempting, however

(D) The government's construction projects would not, on being completed, add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned.
I think this comes directly from the stimulus because "...facilities do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories....." - Means that government need court and laboratories, but nothing is appropriate, this is the reason why gov. inveting into constructions - to use 'em after(implied).
(E) - may be true, but requires several steps to infer such thing. Thus - beyond.

A - is a right answer(IMO). Discusses the possibility of adaptation of existed places, compares cost-effectiveness between new-buldings and adapted-leasing. Then, refutes the eefectivenes of such deal, therefore, supports gov's unwastefulness.
[/b]
we are the champions !
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:51 pm
A is correct, which is defender assumption ,which eliminates the possibility of destroying conclustion.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:04 am
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:620

by bmlaud » Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:03 am
Between A and D, option A is better. It is a defender assumption.

The conclusion is valid today so the assumption should also be valid today.

Option A is about present situation but option D is about a future situation.
"Great works are performed not by strength but by perseverance."
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:32 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Assumption

by kanha81 » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:22 am
I got this wrong under time constraints, but I fully understand this now!
beater wrote:In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?


(A) Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction.
Adaptation (Remodeling) of existing office space to government requirements would be more expensive than a new construction. Hence, Govt. is not wasting any money by implementing its plan.
beater wrote: (B) The government prefers leasing facilities to owning them in cases where the two alternatives are equally cost-effective.
Well, of the 2 alternatives- lease or own, govt. would go with the lease option is not true, because if it were than those facilities would have fulfilled govt. requirements. Hence, new construction which is cost-effective is req'd. Hence, A
beater wrote: (C) If facilities available for leasing come very close to meeting the government's requirements for facilities the government needs, the government can relax its own requirements slightly and consider those facilities in compliance.
This assumption is not true, because if it were, then govt. would not have gone with the option for new construction.
beater wrote: (D) The government's construction projects would not, on being completed, add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned.
This statement is simply saying that the govt. structures will be occupied as soon as they're built, and hence it will not be on the list of unoccupied offices. But this would be just a speculation. We do not know this!
beater wrote: (E) Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are more cost-effective.
Too extreme and irrelevant in the present context
Want to Beat GMAT.
Always do what you're afraid to do. Whoooop GMAT
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:00 am

by graem83d » Sun May 15, 2016 3:15 am
I would choose D. But i am not sure of my answer
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1