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

Redeem

palitito building

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:30 am
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:2 members

palitito building

by schumi_gmat » Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:14 pm
For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There as 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 accomodates 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 arguement?

A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings.
B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings 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 single means of transportation.
E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.

OA - C
I got it right but I want to validate my explanation for eliminating B

conclusion - new parking has reduced the damage to the building
According to me B is a valid assumption. If you negate it looks like you are eliminating the alternate cause, but it has no tie to the conclusion and so I chose C over B.

Can anybody validate my understanding?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Chicago
Thanked: 7 times

by vinayakdl » Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:38 pm
I choose C,

Reasoning:

B: Actually enforces the same thing (although a little extreme) what is stated in 1st line. It does not support the conclusion that the parking has helped slow down the damage. The answer should support the conclusion that the parking has reduced the amount of bus exhaust.
C: shows this clearly.

Vinayak
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:03 am

by pranav » Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:01 pm
B. states that the only pollution that threaten the blgdings is from the engine exhaust.
Hence it just restates what is given in the passage.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:16 pm
Thanked: 9 times
GMAT Score:730

by mikeCoolBoy » Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:42 pm
vinayakdl wrote:I choose C,

Reasoning:

B: Actually enforces the same thing (although a little extreme) what is stated in 1st line. It does not support the conclusion that the parking has helped slow down the damage. The answer should support the conclusion that the parking has reduced the amount of bus exhaust.
C: shows this clearly.

Vinayak
I slightly disagree with your reasoning. For me the conclusion is that
damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly
and not that the parking has reduced the amount of bus exhaust.

I think that if we changed the conclusion to this one
damage to Palitito's buildings will diminish significantly
then B could be the correct answer since it eliminates an alternative cause for the damage and does not support that parking has reduced the amount of bus exhaust.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Re: palitito building

by turbo jet » Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:54 am
schumi_gmat wrote:For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There as 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 accomodates 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 arguement?

A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings.
B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings 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 single means of transportation.
E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.

OA - C
I got it right but I want to validate my explanation for eliminating B

conclusion - new parking has reduced the damage to the building
According to me B is a valid assumption. If you negate it looks like you are eliminating the alternate cause, but it has no tie to the conclusion and so I chose C over B.

Can anybody validate my understanding?

Hi schumi,

Ur understanding correct. If you negate the assumption B, it will mean that
there is not just one but many other sources of pollution that may harm paltito. However my conclusion only talks of exhaust as a source for reducing pollution. So no intelinkage bw the negated assumption and conclusion.
Therefore eliminated

Cheers
TJ
Life is Tom; I am Jerry ;)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:30 am
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:2 members

by schumi_gmat » Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:46 am
Thank you TurboJet
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm
Thanked: 15 times

Re: palitito building

by life is a test » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:35 am
schumi_gmat wrote:For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There as 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 accomodates 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 arguement?

A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings. --> weakens
B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust.-->irrelevant
C) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.--> correctly adds to the argument
D) More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation. --> irrelevant
E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site. --> 'some' could mean a few or a lot so it doesnt help

OA - C
I got it right but I want to validate my explanation for eliminating B

conclusion - new parking has reduced the damage to the building
According to me B is a valid assumption. If you negate it looks like you are eliminating the alternate cause, but it has no tie to the conclusion and so I chose C over B.

Can anybody validate my understanding?
This is an OG question which has been explained well in the book...the passage is claiming that parking for the tour buses will help reduce pollution since the pollution is caused by idle driving around by the buses because they can't find parking.

To strengthen this, you need to look for a statement that extends this further --> C says that 75% is just idle driving around hence strengthens.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Re: palitito building

by turbo jet » Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:40 am
Thx life is a test.

Cheers
TJ

:)
Life is Tom; I am Jerry ;)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Thu May 06, 2010 7:44 am
Please explain why E is the wrong option here

Thanks!
Best-
Amit
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Fri May 07, 2010 6:07 am
any taker???
Best-
Amit
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 am
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
Followed by:64 members
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Sat May 08, 2010 7:38 am
Whether they idle at the curb or drive around, they are still emitting exhaust, so E is irrelevant
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Sat May 08, 2010 7:42 am
kevincanspain wrote:Whether they idle at the curb or drive around, they are still emitting exhaust, so E is irrelevant
I still dont understand Kevin....

Please explain what is the difference between C and E....I find both of them as same......

Kindly advise
Best-
Amit
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Sat May 08, 2010 7:44 am
I mean both C and E say that pollution is happeing because of the exhaust of the bus so what is the difference between the two.....
Best-
Amit
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 am
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
Followed by:64 members
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Sat May 08, 2010 7:52 am
Would you believe the conclusion if tour buses typically spent a very small fraction of their time idling by the curb, in other words if C were false?
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Sat May 08, 2010 7:57 am
kevincanspain wrote:Would you believe the conclusion if tour buses typically spent a very small fraction of their time idling by the curb, in other words if C were false?
I understand this....In fact the conclusion would not stand if C were false.....

But if we consider E...it also says that by creating more parking spaces pollution will reduce by exhaust.....so what is the difference here.....is it the difference between the use of 'Most' in argument and 'some' in option E...
Best-
Amit
Top
Post new topic Post Reply