-
badpoem
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 11:06 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
- GMAT Score:710
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 $5 million 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.
OA - A
My question: How exactly does the OA strengthen the argument?
If the OA were true, then removing the boxes would not have been needed. Simply doing what the OA talks about could have solved the problem. In that sense, does the OA not weaken the argument? The conclusion is "Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes." Should we not try to strengthen this? Again, IMO, what OA does could have been done irrespective of the proposal in the argument with the same desired effect. The OA can also be treated as an alternative to the proposal in the argument. Where am I going wrong? Please help!
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 $5 million 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.
OA - A
My question: How exactly does the OA strengthen the argument?
If the OA were true, then removing the boxes would not have been needed. Simply doing what the OA talks about could have solved the problem. In that sense, does the OA not weaken the argument? The conclusion is "Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes." Should we not try to strengthen this? Again, IMO, what OA does could have been done irrespective of the proposal in the argument with the same desired effect. The OA can also be treated as an alternative to the proposal in the argument. Where am I going wrong? Please help!
