A real estate developer in Florida

lheiannie07 wrote:A real estate developer in Florida, desiring to protect his high-rise apartment building on the beach from hurricane damage, has planted sea oats in two rows in front of his
building in order to encourage the development of sand dunes between the water and his building.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the probable effectiveness of the developer's plan?

A. Sand dunes provide little protection for tall buildings against the wind, which is sufficiently powerful even in minor hurricanes to cause serious damage to buildings.
B. Sand dunes have been shown to provide effective protection against the storm surge, the pounding waves driven by hurricane-force winds onto dry land.
C. Although sea oats will lead to the growth of sand dunes over many years, it would be far faster to build concrete bunkers between the building and the water.
D. Hurricane insurance has become so expensive that many owners of beachfront property choose not to buy it.
E. The developer has invested in reinforced steel girders and shatterproof glass as a way of minimizing damage to his building in the event that a hurricane hits the area.

I want to know about the experts opinion on this one, can some experts comment on this?

OA A

The Plan to protect high-rise from hurricanes: Plant sea oats to encourage the development of sand dunes between the water and the building.

If we're trying to weaken this plan, we're looking for an answer choice that suggests that dunes will not protect the building in the event of a hurricane. This is precisely what we get from A. If the sand dunes can't protect the building from wind, and hurricanes produce damaging winds, those dunes are not going to keep the building safe.

The argument's conclusion is that the plan to protect the building from hurricane damage will be effective. The evidence is that the owner has planted sea oats to encourage the development of sand dunes.

The question asks us to weaken or cast doubt on the plan. The argument assumes that the sand dunes will indeed protect the building from hurricane damage. If the dunes will NOT be effective in this regard, the argument is weakened.

Choice A directly attacks the assumption given above. If the dunes won't do much to protect the hotel from hurricanes, then the plan is not effective. This choice is correct.

Choice B supports the plan/argument. The dunes WILL be effective.

Choice C says that other methods of protecting the hotel from hurricanes are available. The concrete bunkers are faster to install, but that doesn't mean that the dunes aren't effective. This is an irrelevant comparison, something to watch out for on the test. This choice does not effect the conclusion.

Choice D is wholly irrelevant. Whether the hotel owners buy no insurance, a little, or a great deal, has no relevancy to the effectiveness of the plan to use sand dunes.

Choice E is irrelevant to deciding the effectiveness of using sand dunes. It's relevant to the owner, but that's not our concern. Will the sand dunes work? That's all we care about.

I'm available if you'd like any follow up.

you can try and check the information here