-
arghya05
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:38 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from
many tour buses that come to the city. There has 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 accommodates 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 argument?
A. The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles isn't a significant threat to the 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. Most 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.
A and B are out of scope why?........................
as with B i can say no other effects contribute to pollution other than exhaust.................
so it is a strengthener
but the main relationship is iddling--------------------------> polution
so we have to show how idling contribute to pollution
in real gmat choices like a or b might make be temped to click(how can i judge if a choice is out of scope)
i have done several strengthen or weaken question where one have to just find out the assumptions.
i still sometimes entice to choose answer like a and b
expert please suggest some bullet proof strategy for strengthen and weakening
many tour buses that come to the city. There has 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 accommodates 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 argument?
A. The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles isn't a significant threat to the 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. Most 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.
A and B are out of scope why?........................
as with B i can say no other effects contribute to pollution other than exhaust.................
so it is a strengthener
but the main relationship is iddling--------------------------> polution
so we have to show how idling contribute to pollution
in real gmat choices like a or b might make be temped to click(how can i judge if a choice is out of scope)
i have done several strengthen or weaken question where one have to just find out the assumptions.
i still sometimes entice to choose answer like a and b
expert please suggest some bullet proof strategy for strengthen and weakening
