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

Redeem

strengthen question tactic

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:54 am
Thanked: 1 times

strengthen question tactic

by jerseygirl » Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:12 pm
i would like some tips on how to best approach the strengthen questions. i've read tactics where you treat ans choices on a gradient scale, where one ans choice may strengthen the arg more than the other, but this just gets me into the twilight zone.

is there some trick i can use figure out which ans choice strengthens more in a more foolproof way? some say negating the ans choice (like you would with an assumption question) would work. this makes sense, but i wanted to solicit some more advice.

here is a question that i had trouble with recently:

Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone, these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?

A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
B. Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs Springfield approximately five million dollars annually.
C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box.
D. Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department's capacity for responding to fires.
E. On any given day, a significant percentage of the public telephones in Springfield are out of service.

____

A







I guess I thought C and D could also help strengthen the argument too...
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: Gwalior, India
Thanked: 31 times

by goyalsau » Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:08 am
I think it should be C
but still D is a very good contender.

what's the official answer?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:16 pm
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by debmalya_dutta » Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:40 am
jerseygirl wrote:i would like some tips on how to best approach the strengthen questions. i've read tactics where you treat ans choices on a gradient scale, where one ans choice may strengthen the arg more than the other, but this just gets me into the twilight zone.

is there some trick i can use figure out which ans choice strengthens more in a more foolproof way? some say negating the ans choice (like you would with an assumption question) would work. this makes sense, but i wanted to solicit some more advice.

here is a question that i had trouble with recently:

Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone, these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire.

First step identify the conclusion which in this case is that their proposal to remove the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire ....

Then look for how does the author reach the conclusion -
Premise - a majority of the alarms are prank calls made from fire alarm boxes and since everybody now has access to private telephones can still raise the alarm when needed

Always keep the conclusion in might ....
Now look at the options
"



Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?

A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
Let's hold this ... because now that they have proposed removing the boxes , they should still be able to reach the site of crime .. However, this is not possible if the location of the private telephone is not trackable...
B. Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs Springfield approximately five million dollars annually. - This has nothing to do with the argument because the argument is about prank calls .....since people have phone ...remove boxes.... the reason for removing the boxes is not from an economic standpoint
C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box. - This to me is like a FYI....
D. Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department's capacity for responding to fires. - this was never the concern . The solution of removing the boxes was proposed to reduce prank calls
E. On any given day, a significant percentage of the public telephones in Springfield are out of service. - we are talking about private telephones. So this is out of scope really

Hence our option is A

____

A







I guess I thought C and D could also help strengthen the argument too...
@Deb
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: Gwalior, India
Thanked: 31 times

by goyalsau » Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:27 am
debmalya_dutta wrote:
Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone, these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire.

First step identify the conclusion which in this case is that their proposal to remove the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire ....

Then look for how does the author reach the conclusion -
Premise - a majority of the alarms are prank calls made from fire alarm boxes and since everybody now has access to private telephones can still raise the alarm when needed

Always keep the conclusion in might ....
Now look at the options
"



Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?

A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
Let's hold this ... because now that they have proposed removing the boxes , they should still be able to reach the site of crime .. However, this is not possible if the location of the private telephone is not trackable...

C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box. - This to me is like a FYI....

Hence our option is A

____

A


I guess I thought C and D could also help strengthen the argument too...
[/quote]

A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
Let's hold this ... because now that they have proposed removing the boxes , they should still be able to reach the site of crime .. However, this is not possible if the location of the private telephone is not trackable...

I
C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box. - This to me is like a FYI....


What A says is only about the tracking of fire place. But AS it is said in premise " Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire. "

This argument does hold true but they are already able to trace the place of fire without the help of alarm calls so its like same as the premise. you are not adding any new information to strengthen the fire company claim

With C if telephone call can provide the details as it is very specifically said MORE INFORMATION about the nature and size of fire, than then they will able to face the situation without the fire alarm calls and even in a better way as they were able to serve previously.

So i think it should be C not A.
What is the official answer ?
Do you have the explanation from the official source as well.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:54 am
Thanked: 1 times

by jerseygirl » Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:15 am
the answer is A, as noted in the blacked out area.

the OG just says that A strengthens it...i guess my issue is how to discern whether one is an FYI that can strengthen or an actual strengthener...

any tips?
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:54 am
Thanked: 1 times

by jerseygirl » Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:17 am
thanks...this makes sense...i guess i have to be more strict about sticking to the confines of the argument...

mgmat tip was to look beyond scope when necessary to strengthen, so i guess i went overboard in doing that?
debmalya_dutta wrote:
jerseygirl wrote:i would like some tips on how to best approach the strengthen questions. i've read tactics where you treat ans choices on a gradient scale, where one ans choice may strengthen the arg more than the other, but this just gets me into the twilight zone.

is there some trick i can use figure out which ans choice strengthens more in a more foolproof way? some say negating the ans choice (like you would with an assumption question) would work. this makes sense, but i wanted to solicit some more advice.

here is a question that i had trouble with recently:

Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone, these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire.

First step identify the conclusion which in this case is that their proposal to remove the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire ....

Then look for how does the author reach the conclusion -
Premise - a majority of the alarms are prank calls made from fire alarm boxes and since everybody now has access to private telephones can still raise the alarm when needed

Always keep the conclusion in might ....
Now look at the options
"



Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?

A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
Let's hold this ... because now that they have proposed removing the boxes , they should still be able to reach the site of crime .. However, this is not possible if the location of the private telephone is not trackable...
B. Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs Springfield approximately five million dollars annually. - This has nothing to do with the argument because the argument is about prank calls .....since people have phone ...remove boxes.... the reason for removing the boxes is not from an economic standpoint
C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box. - This to me is like a FYI....
D. Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department's capacity for responding to fires. - this was never the concern . The solution of removing the boxes was proposed to reduce prank calls
E. On any given day, a significant percentage of the public telephones in Springfield are out of service. - we are talking about private telephones. So this is out of scope really

Hence our option is A

____

A







I guess I thought C and D could also help strengthen the argument too...
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:32 am
Thanked: 17 times

by this_time_i_will » Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:35 am
The conclusion of the argument is the last line:
"Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire."

So the option that supports the following conclusion points wud strengthen the argument:

1.the proposal sud help in reducing prank calls.
2.people's ability to report fire sud not be hampered.

Let's see C:
C says more info about nature and size of fire can be obtained. It is difficult to explain how the information about nature and size of fire
wud help in reducing prank calls. SO rule out C. Probably this option can satisy only point 2 above.

A:The fire department can trace the calls. This would definately help in reducing prank calls. So this option supports both 1 and 2 above.
select A.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:09 am

by hultt » Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:41 pm
Can someone please clear my doubt on this ques..
Conclusion says >> "Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire"

to me option E is best...
it says "On any given day, a signifi cant percentage of the public telephones in Springfi eld are out of service"
this implies, public phones most of the time are out of service. hence removing them will not impact the ability of people to report fire. But, removing the public phones will certainly reduce the prank calls as they are non traceable.

hence i chose E.

Option A>> Though fire department can trace calls BUT if
1. most of the phones are out of service and not used, hence they MAY be used for prank calls. But even if they are used, it no where mentions the ability of the fire department to reduce the prank calls. hence i got this out.

Can someone please compare option A and E.

Many Thanks.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:09 am

by hultt » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:00 am
Any help Please !!
hultt wrote:Can someone please clear my doubt on this ques..
Conclusion says >> "Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire"

to me option E is best...
it says "On any given day, a signifi cant percentage of the public telephones in Springfi eld are out of service"
this implies, public phones most of the time are out of service. hence removing them will not impact the ability of people to report fire. But, removing the public phones will certainly reduce the prank calls as they are non traceable.

hence i chose E.

Option A>> Though fire department can trace calls BUT if
1. most of the phones are out of service and not used, hence they MAY be used for prank calls. But even if they are used, it no where mentions the ability of the fire department to reduce the prank calls. hence i got this out.

Can someone please compare option A and E.

Many Thanks.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:23 am
hultt wrote:Can someone please clear my doubt on this ques..
Conclusion says >> "Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire"

to me option E is best...
it says "On any given day, a signifi cant percentage of the public telephones in Springfi eld are out of service"
this implies, public phones most of the time are out of service. hence removing them will not impact the ability of people to report fire. But, removing the public phones will certainly reduce the prank calls as they are non traceable.

hence i chose E.

Option A>> Though fire department can trace calls BUT if
1. most of the phones are out of service and not used, hence they MAY be used for prank calls. But even if they are used, it no where mentions the ability of the fire department to reduce the prank calls. hence i got this out.

Can someone please compare option A and E.

Many Thanks.
E. If the public phones don't work anyway, then they aren't being used for prank calls. Removing them will have no effect.

A only discusses private phones; the public phones aren't included in this statement.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1