BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
GMAT Prep - CR
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
I would go with B.For me,the flaw in the sentence is the probability that other sources may contrubute to the damage of buildings as much as exhaust gases.B eleminates this probability
I'd go with B. Seems to be the strongest suggestion that fixing this problem will solve the problem of pollution. If not B, then D. OA?
Hey Kajcha,
I would go with A, coz A is closer to the scope than B
The arguement says that bus exhaust is the primary reason for damge to the buildings.
So there can be two assumptions implied by this
1) Other automobiles in the region dont cause as much as harm
2) Other forms of pollution are not resposible (i. only bus exhaust is responsible)
Now here 1) remains within the arguement context & supports the argument by saying that a) engine exhausts cause damage to buildings
b) Other automobiles do not cause as much as damage by their exhausts
2) also supports by saying that a) Only engine exhausts cause damage b) No other form of pollution is responsible (this is lttle out of scope as it is not discussed in the arguement as the arguemnet focusses on only one type of pollution & that too by a single source)
Kajcha what is the OA
I would go with A, coz A is closer to the scope than B
The arguement says that bus exhaust is the primary reason for damge to the buildings.
So there can be two assumptions implied by this
1) Other automobiles in the region dont cause as much as harm
2) Other forms of pollution are not resposible (i. only bus exhaust is responsible)
Now here 1) remains within the arguement context & supports the argument by saying that a) engine exhausts cause damage to buildings
b) Other automobiles do not cause as much as damage by their exhausts
2) also supports by saying that a) Only engine exhausts cause damage b) No other form of pollution is responsible (this is lttle out of scope as it is not discussed in the arguement as the arguemnet focusses on only one type of pollution & that too by a single source)
Kajcha what is the OA
Regards
Samir
Samir
IMO - E
Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site
so if we could provide parking to these buses, they will not unnecessarily drive around and the exhaust will diminish...?
"...the city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's bldgs from buses exhaust will diminish significantly."
I think you should reveal the OA now...we have chosen all the answers (D is way off)...if it makes my case stronger...then C is also a good alternative....
Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site
so if we could provide parking to these buses, they will not unnecessarily drive around and the exhaust will diminish...?
"...the city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's bldgs from buses exhaust will diminish significantly."
I think you should reveal the OA now...we have chosen all the answers (D is way off)...if it makes my case stronger...then C is also a good alternative....
I am conjecturing E is wrong because it is already stated in the stem. Thus, this information is redundant.
Hi, All---
My line of thinking on this problem is pretty much the same as emrahinci and dingo001's: I went with B. Since the correct answer is C, I was trying to figure out why B is wrong. I didn't think the OA explanations where that great. The OA explanation says that B is wrong because "This statement does not address the question of whether the new parking will reduce the damage by engine exhaust from the buses."
B "feels right," but I suppose this C was the better choice because it strengthened the specific argument about the parking lot reducing exhaust. Was B a trap? I can't help but think B is an assumption necessary for this argument. For example, it doesn't matter how much parking is added if there are other pollutants causing more damage to the buildings. Wouldn't this be the foundation needed to prop up this argument? I understand how C strengthens the argument, but I can't help but think that the root issue was better tackled by B.
Pls let me know where I'm going wrong. Thanks.
My line of thinking on this problem is pretty much the same as emrahinci and dingo001's: I went with B. Since the correct answer is C, I was trying to figure out why B is wrong. I didn't think the OA explanations where that great. The OA explanation says that B is wrong because "This statement does not address the question of whether the new parking will reduce the damage by engine exhaust from the buses."
B "feels right," but I suppose this C was the better choice because it strengthened the specific argument about the parking lot reducing exhaust. Was B a trap? I can't help but think B is an assumption necessary for this argument. For example, it doesn't matter how much parking is added if there are other pollutants causing more damage to the buildings. Wouldn't this be the foundation needed to prop up this argument? I understand how C strengthens the argument, but I can't help but think that the root issue was better tackled by B.
Pls let me know where I'm going wrong. Thanks.
