-
fangtray
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:50 am
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:3 members
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 not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings/
b. Palitoto's Renaissance bildings 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 means of transportation.
e. Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitot while their passengers are visiting a site.
In this problem, exhaust from tour bus idling (x) causes damage of buildings (y).
Conclusion: damage to buildings will diminish significantly.
a. this answer elminates an alternate possible cause for Y suggesting that other than tour buses, the buildings are not harmed by other few automobiles. SO it strengthens the argument/conclusion.
b. this answer also eliminates another possible cause for Y. So strengthens. Consider this: If it were a weaken quesiton, and statement B said the opposite: "Palitito's Renaissance buildings ARE threated by pollution other than engine exhaust". This statement would weaken the argument that damage from Palitito's buildings will be reduced significantly, because it gives info that perhaps Z (other pollution) causes Y (damage to buildings) instead of X causes Y scenario in the stimulus.
C. correct answer. The OG justifies this by saying that the buses are idle most of the time, exactly 3/4s of the time, as opposed to just a short amount of time. But the stimulus states SPECIFICALLY that the buildings are damaged from tour buses's exhaust while they are idle at the tour. This could by idling from 1% or 100%, it doesn't state in the stimulus that tour buses only harm the buildings if they are there for a large percentage of time. Even if they are only idle for 1% of the time, they could harm the building, and the new parking spaces could be reducing idle time, thus reducing damage to Palitito's buildings. Why does it have to be 75% of the time?
PLEASE HELP!!
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?
a. The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings/
b. Palitoto's Renaissance bildings 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 means of transportation.
e. Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitot while their passengers are visiting a site.
In this problem, exhaust from tour bus idling (x) causes damage of buildings (y).
Conclusion: damage to buildings will diminish significantly.
a. this answer elminates an alternate possible cause for Y suggesting that other than tour buses, the buildings are not harmed by other few automobiles. SO it strengthens the argument/conclusion.
b. this answer also eliminates another possible cause for Y. So strengthens. Consider this: If it were a weaken quesiton, and statement B said the opposite: "Palitito's Renaissance buildings ARE threated by pollution other than engine exhaust". This statement would weaken the argument that damage from Palitito's buildings will be reduced significantly, because it gives info that perhaps Z (other pollution) causes Y (damage to buildings) instead of X causes Y scenario in the stimulus.
C. correct answer. The OG justifies this by saying that the buses are idle most of the time, exactly 3/4s of the time, as opposed to just a short amount of time. But the stimulus states SPECIFICALLY that the buildings are damaged from tour buses's exhaust while they are idle at the tour. This could by idling from 1% or 100%, it doesn't state in the stimulus that tour buses only harm the buildings if they are there for a large percentage of time. Even if they are only idle for 1% of the time, they could harm the building, and the new parking spaces could be reducing idle time, thus reducing damage to Palitito's buildings. Why does it have to be 75% of the time?
PLEASE HELP!!
