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

Redeem

Knewton DT---Firefighters

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:700

Knewton DT---Firefighters

by prachich1987 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:57 am
The proposal to add five firefighters to Danbury's volunteer fire department is not well-reasoned. It's true that the city wouldn't need to pay these additional volunteers, but the expense of outfitting the fire hall with enough firefighting equipment for five additional firefighters as well as current firefighters will put too much strain on Danbury's budget.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of the above argument?


(A) Firefighters who are not provided with up-to-date equipment are noticeably less effective than firefighters who have such equipment.

(B) After reaching a peak a decade ago, the cost of firefighting equipment has steadily decreased.

(C) Any additional firefighters hired by Danbury would be assigned to work at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed.

(D) Yearly funding for Danbury's school lunch program is more than the cost of equipping Danbury's fire hall to accommodate the new firefighters.

(E) In many cases, adding new firefighters to a town's fire department has not appreciably decreased the value of property destroyed by fire each year in the town.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:46 am
Thanked: 3 times

by abhishekg21 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:23 am
I think it is C.

since conclusion of argument is that buying fire equipments for additional volunteers will put pressure on budget the option C shows that additional volunteers will be used in case of understaffing and no extra buying of equipment will be needed.
whats the OA ?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:700

by prachich1987 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:29 am
abhishekg21 wrote:I think it is C.

since conclusion of argument is that buying fire equipments for additional volunteers will put pressure on budget the option C shows that additional volunteers will be used in case of understaffing and no extra buying of equipment will be needed.
whats the OA ?
Yes the OA is C.
But why it can't be D
D says that :Yearly funding for Danbury's school lunch program is more than the cost of equipping Danbury's fire hall to accommodate the new firefighters.
so it won't put pressure on Danbury's budget
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:46 am
Thanked: 3 times

by abhishekg21 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:34 am
ok in the context of the arguement we are talkign only about fire equipments buying and not about anything else.
So whether school funding program is more costly then buying fire equipment is out of the scope of this argument.


our aim is to weaken the point that fire equipment buying will impact budget.Whther any other activity impact the city's budget doesn't matter to us.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:700

by prachich1987 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:16 am
abhishekg21 wrote:ok in the context of the arguement we are talkign only about fire equipments buying and not about anything else.
So whether school funding program is more costly then buying fire equipment is out of the scope of this argument.


our aim is to weaken the point that fire equipment buying will impact budget.Whther any other activity impact the city's budget doesn't matter to us.
Yes.Thanks for making it clear
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:09 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by Deepthi Subbu » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:45 am
Prachich , are you sure the OA is C .?

I feel C rather strengthens the argument.

Premise : It's true that the city wouldn't need to pay these additional volunteers, but the expense of outfitting the fire hall with enough firefighting equipment for five additional firefighters as well as current firefighters will put too much strain on Danbury's budget.

Conclusion: The proposal to add five firefighters to Danbury's volunteer fire department is not well-reasoned.

The choice C says that the newly added workers would be assigned work only when the hall is understaffed thereby strengthening the conclusion that proposal to add the new workers is not reasoned well .
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:700

by prachich1987 » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:48 am
Deepthi Subbu wrote:Prachich , are you sure the OA is C .?

I feel C rather strengthens the argument.

Premise : It's true that the city wouldn't need to pay these additional volunteers, but the expense of outfitting the fire hall with enough firefighting equipment for five additional firefighters as well as current firefighters will put too much strain on Danbury's budget.

Conclusion: The proposal to add five firefighters to Danbury's volunteer fire department is not well-reasoned.

The choice C says that the newly added workers would be assigned work only when the hall is understaffed thereby strengthening the conclusion that proposal to add the new workers is not reasoned well .
Yes I am sure!
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:32 am
Location: Chicago,IL
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:19 members
GMAT Score:760

by rkanthilal » Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:03 pm
Responding to a PM. I agree with the OA...

P1: There is a proposal to add five firefighters to Danbury's volunteer fire department.
P2: The city wouldn't need to pay these additional volunteers.
P3: But the expense of outfitting the fire hall with enough firefighting equipment for five additional firefighters as well as current firefighters will put too much strain on Danbury's budget.
C1: The proposal to add five firefighters to Danbury's volunteer fire department is not well-reasoned.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of the above argument?

(A) "Firefighters who are not provided with up-to-date equipment are noticeably less effective than firefighters who have such equipment." Incorrect. This answer strengthens the argument. This answer implies that the new firefighters will need "up-to-date equipment" if they are to perform well. According to the passage, outfitting the fire hall with enough firefighting equipment for five additional firefighters will put too much strain on Danbury's budget.

(B) "After reaching a peak a decade ago, the cost of firefighting equipment has steadily decreased." Incorrect. This answer has no effect on the conclusion. Even if the cost of firefighting equipment is steadily decreasing it may still be high enough to strain Danbury's budget.

(C) "Any additional firefighters hired by Danbury would be assigned to work at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed." Correct. The conclusion is based on the premise that "the expense of outfitting the fire hall with enough firefighting equipment for five additional firefighters as well as current firefighters will put too much strain on Danbury's budget."

This premise implies that the expense to purchase enough equipment for all the current firefighters plus five more will put too much strain on Danbury's budget. You would only need all this equipment if all the firefighters are working at the same time. If the additional firefighters are assigned to work at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed they can use the equipment that is already there (helmets, oxygen tanks, axes, etc.) and the town would not need to purchase as much additional equipment. This weakens the conclusion by weakening the main criticism (budget strain) of the proposal.

NOTE: The fact that the additional firefighters would be assigned to work at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed does not strengthen the conclusion. You cannot interpret this answer choice to mean that because of the understaffing the additional firefighters will be working in conditions where they cannot perform their job effectively.

We don't know what "severely understaffed" means. It could mean that the fire department has enough support staff but is short a few firefighters. In this case adding volunteer firefighters is just what the town needs.

(D) "Yearly funding for Danbury's school lunch program is more than the cost of equipping Danbury's fire hall to accommodate the new firefighters." Incorrect. This answer does not directly address the argument. The basis for the author's conclusion is that the cost to equip Danbury's fire hall to accommodate the new firefighters is significant enough to put too much strain on Danbury's budget.

The fact that the school lunch program receives more funding than the cost of equipping the fire hall does not provide us with any usable information. The fact that the cost of the school lunch program is greater than the cost to equip the fire hall does not mean that the cost to equip the fire hall is insignificant. The cost to equip the fire hall may still be large enough to strain the budget.

(E) "In many cases, adding new firefighters to a town's fire department has not appreciably decreased the value of property destroyed by fire each year in the town." Incorrect. This answer shifts the focus of the argument. The conclusion is that the proposal is not well reasoned. The basis for this conclusion is that the cost to equip the fire hall will put too much strain on Danbury's budget.

The wording in this answer choice is a little difficult to follow. This answer states that adding new firefighters to a town's fire department does not appreciably decrease the value of property destroyed by fire each year in the town. This means that the amount of property damage caused by fire is roughly the same regardless if a town adds more firefighters. This implies that adding new firefighters is not effective.

The fact that additional firefighters are not effective would strengthen the conclusion that the proposal is not well-reasoned. However, since the purpose of firefighters is mainly to protect people and not property, you could argue that the amount of property damage caused by fire is irrelevant in determining the effectiveness of additional firefighters. If additional firefighters save more people then they can be considered effective regardless of the amount of property damage they prevent.

This answer either strengthens the conclusion or it is irrelevant. In any case this answer is wrong.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:09 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by Deepthi Subbu » Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:22 pm
Great explanation rkanthilal . I some how misunderstood the original cause and the conclusion . Got the point now , thank you.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:27 am
You would only need all this equipment if all the firefighters are working at the same time. If the additional firefighters are assigned to work at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed they can use the equipment that is already there (helmets, oxygen tanks, axes, etc.) and the town would not need to purchase as much additional equipment.
rkanthilal,
I went thru ur explanation.
I didnt get the bolded part above.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:32 am
Location: Chicago,IL
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:19 members
GMAT Score:760

by rkanthilal » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:04 am
mundasingh123 wrote:You would only need all this equipment if all the firefighters are working at the same time. If the additional firefighters are assigned to work at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed they can use the equipment that is already there (helmets, oxygen tanks, axes, etc.) and the town would not need to purchase as much additional equipment.
rkanthilal,
I went thru ur explanation.
I didnt get the bolded part above.
For example let's assume that there are 10 existing firefighters and the town is considering adding 5 more. The passage states that "the expense of outfitting the fire hall with enough firefighting equipment for five additional firefighters as well as current firefighters will put too much strain on Danbury's budget." In my opinion the bold part is the key. This implies that the town intends to purchase 5 additional sets of equipment for the new firefighters so each firefighter will have his own set of equipment.

Answer (C) states that "any additional firefighters would be assigned to work at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed." If the new firefighters are only working at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed then they will not need their own sets of equipment. They can share equipment with the existing firefighters. Thus, the fire hall will not need to be equipped with 15 sets of equipment. This answer weakens the conclusion because it implies that there will be less strain on the Danbury budget than what is implied in the passage.
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:56 am
rkanthilal wrote:
five additional firefighters as well as current firefighters
yes this is the most important point which made C the obvious choice!
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1