Critical Reasoning

Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s 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 strongly supports the editorial’s argument?
A. The only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall
were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those
in the safety codes.
B. Because of the particular location of the equipment-storage building, the weight
of snow on its roof was greater than the maximum weight allowed for in 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 columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes
required for such a building.
E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snowremoval
equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof
collapsed.

IMO D

If the columns met the safety stds. then the roof collapsed because of sub std. nails.

Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s 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 strongly supports the editorial’s argument?
A. The only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall
were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those
in the safety codes.
B. Because of the particular location of the equipment-storage building, the weight
of snow on its roof was greater than the maximum weight allowed for in 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 columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes
required for such a building.
E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snowremoval
equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof
collapsed.


A is the best of the lot.

D should be the answer.

A should be out because it says Older Buildings constructed according to less exacting standards. So the fall of the reason could be either that the buildings were old or that they were not according to standards.

IMHO A,

I would agree with D if it say no weaker than the code requires,

A IMO. OA plz

I may be wrong. IMO answer should be A

A. The only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those in the safety codes. - Correct answer
B. Because of the particular location of the equipment-storage building, the weight of snow on its roof was greater than the maximum weight allowed for in the safety codes. - Weakens the argument
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. - Weakens the argument
D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building. - If the columns were not stronger than the required ones, they could be at least as strong or less strong than the ones required by safety codes. Doesn't highlight the problem at hand.
E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snow removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed. - Irrelevant information

IMO A

Hi crackgmat, can you please post the OA?

IMO A.

OA - C But I am not sure if its correct. I would go for A.

crackgmat007 wrote:Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council�s 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 strongly supports the editorial�s argument?
A. The only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall
were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those
in the safety codes.
B. Because of the particular location of the equipment-storage building, the weight
of snow on its roof was greater than the maximum weight allowed for in 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 columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes
required for such a building.
E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snowremoval
equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof
collapsed.

Why A is correct/wrong here?.....Can anyone please explain this one...

Thanks!

I am not clear as to how 'C' could be the answer. I went for 'A'.

Please quote the source of this question.

[quote="ssgmatter
Why A is correct/wrong here?.....Can anyone please explain this one...

Thanks![/quote]

Conclusion: Even a single, apparently insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.

Premises: The roof of the building collapsed under the weight of heavy snowfall. The building was constructed recently and met local building-safety codes in every particular, except that the nails used....were of a smaller size.

Which statement will strenghten the argument?

A. The only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall
were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those
in the safety codes. - That means these buildings were not built as per strict norms and none of the other new buildings (whcih were built as per strict safetly norms) collapsed. This clearly supports the argument - strict norms -> no collapse; no strict norms -> may collapse
B. Because of the particular location of the equipment-storage building, the weight
of snow on its roof was greater than the maximum weight allowed for in the
safety codes. - If at all the location of the building is important, the violation of the safetly code on weitht would be considered as huge violation, not marginal. Hence this weakens the argument.
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. - The idea is to follow the safety norms for the given type of building. This statement is far away from the main reasoning.
D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes
required for such a building. - This will be huge violation. Hence it weakens the argument.
E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snowremoval
equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof
collapsed. - There is no relation (as per the text) between building being empty and it's collapse. Irrevalent.

Answer A. Option C does not look correct to me.

Please let me know if my reasoning has flaw.