City X, flaw in reasoning

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:10 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:5 members

City X, flaw in reasoning

by gmatblood » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:59 am
Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land, contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

This year several housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.

The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years.

The population of City X is projected to grow by 4% this year, compared with only 3% for last year.

The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year.

Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, have remained steady over the past year.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:07 am
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:14 members
GMAT Score:750

by CappyAA » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:39 am
The argument concludes that less new residents are moving in because it developers aren't buying more land, contractors are out of work longer, and speacialty workers are relying on existing-home remodeling jobs. So the argument basically says that because no new homes are being constructed, fewer new residents must be moving in. We need to find something that would weaken that.

Note that we don't need to prove that fewer new residents are moving in. We only need to at least damage the reasoning above.

A states that several new housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for an extended period of time. This would destroy that reasoning above. If there are plenty of new homes available because housing developments have already been built and are now being released, it would explain why new places aren't being built. It would also refute the claim that less new residents are moving in.

A
Taking the GMAT Again...PhD this time!

October 2008 Score: GMAT - 750 (50 Q, 41 V) :D

Manhattan GMAT 1 - 11/20/11 - 750 (50 Q, 42 V)
Manhattan GMAT 2 - 12/3/11 - 780 (51 Q, 45 V)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:48 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:6 members

by gunjan1208 » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:29 pm
IMO A.

Thanks copy AA. You are awesome.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:13 am
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:650

by vzzai » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:38 am
IMO A. However, this does not seem like a flaw in the reasoning question to me! :)
Thank you,
Vj

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:43 am

by sandipsharma1 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:29 am
I have doubts with the conclusion of this argument.

therefore
1. Fewer house constructed -----------> less people moving in.

OR

therefore
2. Less people moving in -----------> fewer house constructed.

The 2nd option sounds more appropriate. Please comment guys.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:10 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:5 members

by gmatblood » Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:17 pm
OA is A