During the recent spate of brushfires in the Southwest, homeowners who lived near affected areas were advised to douse their roofs with water to prevent their houses from catching fire before evacuating the area. After the fires were brought under control and the homeowners were allowed to return to the area, many who doused their roofs discovered significant fire damage to their houses. Clearly, then, dousing their roofs was a wasted effort.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?
1] The houses of owners who did not douse the roofs with water suffered appreciably more fire damage than did those of owners who did douse the roofs with water.
2] Not all homeowners who doused their roofs did so to the same extent.
3] The fire insurance rates for those who doused their roofs did not increase after the fire.
4] The houses that suffered the least damage were those in which the owners remained and continuously doused the roofs.
5] Most of the homeowners who doused their roofs had been through a brushfire evacuation before.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
brushfires
This topic has expert replies
-
money9111
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2109
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:25 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Thanked: 109 times
- Followed by:79 members
- GMAT Score:640
i had this down to 1 and 4.. but i'm going to choose 4 because it shows the extreme effect of what dousing your roof would have been...
My goal is to make MBA applicants take onus over their process.
My story from Pre-MBA to Cornell MBA - New Post in Pre-MBA blog
Me featured on Poets & Quants
Free Book for MBA Applicants
My story from Pre-MBA to Cornell MBA - New Post in Pre-MBA blog
Me featured on Poets & Quants
Free Book for MBA Applicants
-
amazonviper
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:22 pm
- Location: Indy
- Thanked: 3 times
nice question. I was trying to choose between 1 and 4.
I choose 1 since the passage concludes that "Clearly dousing did not help" and option 1 clearly states that there is a difference in severity of damage for doused Vs undoused houses
I did not choose option 4 since the passage is not about "how much and often" you should be dousing but just dousing alone will reduce fire damage/spread.
Hope my chain of reasoning is correct. Please let us know the OA. Thanks.
I choose 1 since the passage concludes that "Clearly dousing did not help" and option 1 clearly states that there is a difference in severity of damage for doused Vs undoused houses
I did not choose option 4 since the passage is not about "how much and often" you should be dousing but just dousing alone will reduce fire damage/spread.
Hope my chain of reasoning is correct. Please let us know the OA. Thanks.
__________________________________
Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
-
analyst218
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:43 pm
- Thanked: 3 times
- GMAT Score:720
1 states clearly the diff. in consequence of not dousing and dousing.
4 looks correct in that it mentions the effectiveness of dousing; however, the scope is on those who
doused and left their houses. but 4 talks abt those ppl who stayed and it just provides a way ppl could have BETTER protected the house from fire.
4 looks correct in that it mentions the effectiveness of dousing; however, the scope is on those who
doused and left their houses. but 4 talks abt those ppl who stayed and it just provides a way ppl could have BETTER protected the house from fire.
-
komal
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Thanked: 117 times
- Followed by:47 members
vscid wrote:During the recent spate of brushfires in the Southwest, homeowners who lived near affected areas were advised to douse their roofs with water to prevent their houses from catching fire before evacuating the area. After the fires were brought under control and the homeowners were allowed to return to the area, many who doused their roofs discovered significant fire damage to their houses. Clearly, then, dousing their roofs was a wasted effort.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?
Conclusion : Dousing the roofs was a wasted effort.
1] The houses of owners who did not douse the roofs with water suffered appreciably more fire damage than did those of owners who did douse the roofs with water.
Correct : This undermines the conclusion by stating that dousing the roofs was indeed not a wasted effort since ppl who doused the roofs suffered less fire damage than those who did not douse the roofs.
2] Not all homeowners who doused their roofs did so to the same extent.
Incorrect : Extent of dousing is not an issue here.
3] The fire insurance rates for those who doused their roofs did not increase after the fire.
Incorrect : Insurance rates clearly out of scope.
4] The houses that suffered the least damage were those in which the owners remained and continuously doused the roofs.
Incorrect : Issue is about ppl who EVACUATED, it is not about ppl who STAYED IN.
5] Most of the homeowners who doused their roofs had been through a brushfire evacuation before.
Incorrect : What they did before is irrelevant to the scope of the argument
-
KICKGMATASS123
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:13 am
- Location: New Jersey
- GMAT Score:650
IMO E. Since you have to weaken, you clearly need an argument that says dousing was not a wasted effort. E says most homeowners who doused their roofs had been through a brushfire evac before. so this would mean that their roofs might have been damaged from before the fire and thus weakening the claim that dousing was useless..vscid wrote:During the recent spate of brushfires in the Southwest, homeowners who lived near affected areas were advised to douse their roofs with water to prevent their houses from catching fire before evacuating the area. After the fires were brought under control and the homeowners were allowed to return to the area, many who doused their roofs discovered significant fire damage to their houses. Clearly, then, dousing their roofs was a wasted effort.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?
1] The houses of owners who did not douse the roofs with water suffered appreciably more fire damage than did those of owners who did douse the roofs with water.
2] Not all homeowners who doused their roofs did so to the same extent.
3] The fire insurance rates for those who doused their roofs did not increase after the fire.
4] The houses that suffered the least damage were those in which the owners remained and continuously doused the roofs.
5] Most of the homeowners who doused their roofs had been through a brushfire evacuation before.
-
gmatmachoman
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
KICKGMATASS123 wrote:IMO E. Since you have to weaken, you clearly need an argument that says dousing was not a wasted effort. E says most homeowners who doused their roofs had been through a brushfire evac before. so this would mean that their roofs might have been damaged from before the fire and thus weakening the claim that dousing was useless..vscid wrote:During the recent spate of brushfires in the Southwest, homeowners who lived near affected areas were advised to douse their roofs with water to prevent their houses from catching fire before evacuating the area. After the fires were brought under control and the homeowners were allowed to return to the area, many who doused their roofs discovered significant fire damage to their houses. Clearly, then, dousing their roofs was a wasted effort.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?
1] The houses of owners who did not douse the roofs with water suffered appreciably more fire damage than did those of owners who did douse the roofs with water.
2] Not all homeowners who doused their roofs did so to the same extent.
3] The fire insurance rates for those who doused their roofs did not increase after the fire.
4] The houses that suffered the least damage were those in which the owners remained and continuously doused the roofs.
5] Most of the homeowners who doused their roofs had been through a brushfire evacuation before.
I am not very sure of the answers IMO C....This one is a guess!!
What i see is dousing is all about to prevent their houses from catching fire. It is clearly mentioned people who have done dousing have undergone "significant damage"...
So still they are going to be benefitted..How???
C says.. The fire insurance rates for those who doused their roofs did not increase after the fire.
.I understand that "atleast those people who have doused their roofs can be contented in a way that they are not shelling out more money in addition to the significant damage they had...."
this is my IMO only....May be i could be wrong...I really liked this one!
-
gauravgundal
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:15 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 13 times
Con : dousing their roofs was a wasted effort
Reason for the conclusion is that many who doused their roofs discovered significant fire damage to their houses.
only way to weaken this argument is either to compare the level of damage with std level of damage
or to compare the level of damage of the house whose roofs were doused with the level of damage of the house whose roofs were not doused.
So A satifies that condition
B - Not all houses did so..but we can't conclude from this whether the dousing was a wasted effort.
Consider 100 houses - Not all ( 0 to 99) so may be 99 houses did so or 0 house did so ..can be anything
D - It Talks about different group of people (ppl who stayed in house ) -out of scope
C - Out of scope -Argument doesn't mention whether ppl took the insurance for their houses before fire nor about the insurance rates before fire ...etc etc.
E- we don't need any background information of homeowners ..
Reason for the conclusion is that many who doused their roofs discovered significant fire damage to their houses.
only way to weaken this argument is either to compare the level of damage with std level of damage
or to compare the level of damage of the house whose roofs were doused with the level of damage of the house whose roofs were not doused.
So A satifies that condition
B - Not all houses did so..but we can't conclude from this whether the dousing was a wasted effort.
Consider 100 houses - Not all ( 0 to 99) so may be 99 houses did so or 0 house did so ..can be anything
D - It Talks about different group of people (ppl who stayed in house ) -out of scope
C - Out of scope -Argument doesn't mention whether ppl took the insurance for their houses before fire nor about the insurance rates before fire ...etc etc.
E- we don't need any background information of homeowners ..
