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

Redeem

Fire alarms

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:00 am
Thanked: 2 times
GMAT Score:710

Fire alarms

by Pdgmat2010 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:18 am
Bill: Smoke-detecting fire alarms can save lives. I believe that every apartment in this city should be required by law to be equipped with a smoke detector.
Joe: I disagree with your proposal. Smoke detectors are just as important for safety in private houses as they are in apartment.

From this exchange, it can be inferred that Joe has interpreted Bill's statement to mean that

(A) the city should be responsible for providing smoke detectors for apartments
(B) residences outside the city should not be equipped with smoke detectors
(C) only apartments should be equipped with smoke detectors
(D) the risk of fire is not as great in private houses as it is in apartments
(E) the rate of death by fire is unusually high in the city in question

I got tricked by C as i thought 'only' is an extreme word not warranted in this discussion.

Please pen down your analysis of all answer choices
My analysis
a. out of scope. Bill does not say that
b. nowhere is it mentioned that residences outside the city = private houses . reject
c. 'only' got tricked by this word. rejected this option
D. i chose this
E.out of scope

OA is C
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

by selango » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:30 am
The question asks about what is inferred from bill statement
Last edited by selango on Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 116 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:770

by albatross86 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:34 am
Bill is suggesting a law to install smoke detectors in every apartment.
Joe disagrees, saying that they are as important for private houses too.

How has Joe interpreted Bill's statement?
It is clear that Joe actually agrees that smoke detector's are important too. He feels they should be installed in both private houses and apartments. Thus his disagreement is not about the smoke detectors, but with Bill's suggestion about apartments. It is clear therefore that he is assuming that Bill is suggesting the law ONLY for apartments, and not for private houses, though this is not clear from Bill's statement.

Thus, Joe interprets Bill's statement to mean that the law should be only for apartments. This clearly points to C, but let's rule out the other choices too.

A. Not really. Who should install/provide these smoke detectors, is out of the scope of the arguments.

B. Joe never refuted the "outside / inside city limits" aspect of Bill's argument. Though Bill did say "in this city", Joe never mentions this in his concerns.

C. Bingo!

D. This is too extreme, Joe doesn't suggest that Bill is claiming that private houses do not have a risk of fire, he is only pointing out that Bill neglected/ignored private houses as an equal concern for fires and thus equally important for them to have smoke detectors. The comparative risks are not evident in Bill's argument.

E. Irrelevant.

About the word "only" in C. This is actually justified here, because that is exactly what Joe's concern is. Bill did not speak against private apartments, or suggest that he believes they do not need smoke detectors, he only neglected to mention them. Joe disagrees with Bill's proposition on the basis that private houses are equally important. Thus it is clear that he interpreted Bill's proposal to be exclusive to apartments.

D is the only other option that comes close, but it is the extreme one here.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

by selango » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:56 am
By mistake i thought what can be inferred from joe statement.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1