OG Q Editorial: The roof of Northtown's municipal equipment

Expert replies

Previous Topic Next Topic

vickysan: Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts; Posts: 13; Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 4:23 pmFollowed by: 2 members; Location: San Jose; Thanked: 1 times

by vickysan » Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:52 pm

Timer

00:00

Answers

Stats

Difficulty—

Editorial: The roof of Northtown's municipal equipment-storage building collapsed under the weight of last week's heavy snowfall. The building was constructed recently and met local building-safety codes in every particular, except that the nails used for attaching roof supports to the building's columns were of a smaller size than the codes specify for this purpose. Clearly, this collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial's argument?

(A) The only other buildings to suffer roof collapses from the weight of the snowfall were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those in the codes.
(B) The amount of snow that accumulated on the roof of the equipment-storage building was greater than the predicted maximum that was used in drawing up the safety codes.
(C) Because the equipment-storage building was not intended for human occupation, some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office building did not apply to it.
(D) The municipality of Northtown itself has the responsibility for ensuring that buildings constructed within its boundaries meet the provisions of the building-safety codes.
(E) Because the equipment-storage building was used for storing snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

Experts I'm curious to hear your take. This is from the 2016 book, and the explanation is not really helpful.

Vicky

Like this post

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:52 pm

Jim@StratusPrep: MBA Admissions Consultant; Posts: 2279; Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:51 amFollowed by: 266 members; Location: New York; Thanked: 660 times; GMAT Score:770

by Jim@StratusPrep » Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:45 am

The answer is B as it demonstrates that is was something other than the nails that cause the collapse. The first thing you should do in a CR question such as this is find the argument. Here it is that the sub-standard nails caused the collapse. If weakening, you are looking to find something that shows it was not the nails, but rather something else - in this case, snow beyond the intended capacity for the building led to the collapse.

GMAT Answers provides a world class adaptive learning platform.
-- Push button course navigation to simplify planning
-- Daily assignments to fit your exam timeline
-- Organized review that is tailored based on your abiility
-- 1,000s of unique GMAT questions
-- 100s of handwritten 'digital flip books' for OG questions
-- 100% Free Trial and less than $20 per month after.
-- Free GMAT Quantitative Review

Like this post

src_saurav: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 145; Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:27 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 2 times

by src_saurav » Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:32 am

B is the answer. I agree to everything that Jim says.

Find the assumption .It is the UNSTATED premise(hidden argument) and look to weaken or strngthen it.

Like this post

vickysan: Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts; Posts: 13; Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 4:23 pmFollowed by: 2 members; Location: San Jose; Thanked: 1 times

by vickysan » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:21 pm

Thanks for your helpful input about B, Jim.

I'm also curious about getting some other expert explanations, ideally from Mitch, or Marty Murray? I'd appreciate it if possible. Your reasoning really resonates with me. Thanks!!

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:55 am

vickysan wrote:Editorial: The roof of Northtown's municipal equipment-storage building collapsed under the weight of last week's heavy snowfall. The building was constructed recently and met local building-safety codes in every particular, except that the nails used for attaching roof supports to the building's columns were of a smaller size than the codes specify for this purpose. Clearly, this collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial's argument?

(A) The only other buildings to suffer roof collapses from the weight of the snowfall were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those in the codes.
(B) The amount of snow that accumulated on the roof of the equipment-storage building was greater than the predicted maximum that was used in drawing up the safety codes.
(C) Because the equipment-storage building was not intended for human occupation, some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office building did not apply to it.
(D) The municipality of Northtown itself has the responsibility for ensuring that buildings constructed within its boundaries meet the provisions of the building-safety codes.
(E) Because the equipment-storage building was used for storing snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

Premise: The NAILS were of a SMALLER SIZE than the codes specify.
Conclusion: Even a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards can have SEVERE CONSEQUENCES.

This is a CAUSAL argument.
The passage assumes that the SMALLER SIZE OF THE NAILS had a SEVERE CONSEQUENCE -- namely, the collapse of the roof.
One way to weaken a causal argument is to suggest an ALTERNATE CAUSE.

Answer choice B: The amount of snow that accumulated on the roof of the equipment-storage building was greater than the predicted maximum that was used in drawing up the safety codes.
Implication:
Even if the nails had been of the appropriate size, the roof still would have collapsed, since THE AMOUNT OF SNOW WAS GREATER THAN THE PREDICTED MAXIMUM.
By suggesting that an ALTERNATE CAUSE -- the amount of snow greater than the predicted maximum -- caused the collapse of the roof, B WEAKENS the conclusion that a single departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.

The correct answer is B.

Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Like this post

RBBmba@2014: Legendary Member; Posts: 944; Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 amFollowed by: 5 members; Thanked: 8 times

by RBBmba@2014 » Thu May 12, 2016 9:42 am

Hi Mitch,
I can understand why B is the OA, but it seems that the option C is pretty close to be the OA! Why it'd be wrong ?

We know that Conclusion: Even a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards can have SEVERE CONSEQUENCES.

So option C implies that there were DEVIATIONS (more than the NAILS of a SMALLER SIZE) from some safety-code provisions. Then can we not say that these DEVIATIONS are ALTERNATE REASONS for the collapse ?

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Fri May 13, 2016 4:40 am

RBBmba@2014 wrote:We know that Conclusion: Even a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards can have SEVERE CONSEQUENCES.

So option C implies that there were DEVIATIONS (more than the NAILS of a SMALLER SIZE) from some safety-code provisions. Then can we not say that these DEVIATIONS are ALTERNATE REASONS for the collapse ?

C: Because the equipment-storage building was not intended for human occupation, some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office building did not apply to it.
This option attempts to weaken the PREMISE that the building met local building-safety codes IN EVERY PARTICULAR except for the misuse of nails.
A premise is a FACT.
It cannot be weakened.
Eliminate any answer choice that attempts to weaken a premise.
Eliminate C.

Like this post

cuhmoon: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 4; Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:29 pm

TTT

by cuhmoon » Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:27 am

Great explanation. However, isn't the fact that the "snow accumulated was greater than prediction" also another deviation from the safety codes and thus strengthens the claim that deviation can cause serious consequences?

[quote="GMATGuruNY"][quote="RBBmba@2014"]We know that [color=red]Conclusion:[/color] [i]Even a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards can have SEVERE CONSEQUENCES.[/i]

So option C implies that there were DEVIATIONS (more than the NAILS of a SMALLER SIZE) from some safety-code provisions. Then can we not say that these DEVIATIONS are ALTERNATE REASONS for the collapse ?[/quote]

C: [i]Because the equipment-storage building was not intended for human occupation, some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office building did not apply to it.[/i]
This option attempts to weaken the PREMISE that the building [i]met local building-safety codes IN EVERY PARTICULAR[/i] except for the misuse of nails.
A premise is a FACT.
It cannot be weakened.
Eliminate any answer choice that attempts to weaken a premise.
Eliminate C.[/quote]

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:39 am

cuhmoon wrote:Great explanation. However, isn't the fact that the "snow accumulated was greater than prediction" also another deviation from the safety codes and thus strengthens the claim that deviation can cause serious consequences?

A safety standard is a RULE -- a rule about how a building is to be constructed.
Snowfall is not a rule.
Thus, the portion in red does not constitute a deviation from safety standards.

Like this post

Post new topic Post Reply

• Page 1 of 1

GMAT Course Reviews

560 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review