Critical Reasoning

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

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?

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?

kevincanspain wrote:Whether they idle at the curb or drive around, they are still emitting exhaust, so E is irrelevant

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?