prachich1987 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?

shovan85 wrote:

prachich1987 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?

Argument: Collapse happens due to deviation ( nails ) from safety standards

Premises: Roof collapsed due to weight of last weeks heavy snowfall. All the safety standards are met but the nails

Objective: Strengthen / Support

Options

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.

This option clearly exemplifies the leukemia that safety standard is not followed.

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 the weight > allowed weight then though the following safety standards is of no use.

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.

Safety standards are not followed. But we have to show that single deviation can cause building collapse, by saying they are not applied will not help us evaluate how a single deviation is important.

D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.

So the collapse can be because of the weak columns not the deviation is Nail standard.

E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snow removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

We are not concerned about the after effects of the roof collapse.

IMO A

prachich1987 wrote:
Argument: Collapse happens due to deviation ( nails ) from safety standards

Options

D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.

So the collapse can be because of the weak columns not the deviation is Nail standard.

But I don't understand why D is wrong.
Even D says that the building has not followed safety stds.So it is supporting the argument

shovan85 wrote:

prachich1987 wrote:
Argument: Collapse happens due to deviation ( nails ) from safety standards

Options

D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.

So the collapse can be because of the weak columns not the deviation is Nail standard.

But I don't understand why D is wrong.
Even D says that the building has not followed safety stds.So it is supporting the argument

See the Argument and see the objective. But Option D says that it happened because of weak columns. This means the collapse is not due to nails but due to columns. So this provides an alternate idea to explain why building roof collpased.

Clearly weakens the argument, not strengthen it.

See D is giving alternate explanation for the same building we are concerned about. It would have been correct if the explanations of the weak columns were pointed to some other building. This is being shown in option A.

kapur.arnav wrote:

shovan85 wrote:

prachich1987 wrote:
Argument: Collapse happens due to deviation ( nails ) from safety standards

Options

D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.

So the collapse can be because of the weak columns not the deviation is Nail standard.

But I don't understand why D is wrong.
Even D says that the building has not followed safety stds.So it is supporting the argument

See the Argument and see the objective. But Option D says that it happened because of weak columns. This means the collapse is not due to nails but due to columns. So this provides an alternate idea to explain why building roof collpased.

Clearly weakens the argument, not strengthen it.

See D is giving alternate explanation for the same building we are concerned about. It would have been correct if the explanations of the weak columns were pointed to some other building. This is being shown in option A.

Read D carefully and you will realize that the coloumns of the building were no stronger - this means that they were of specified quality or lower than the specified quality... so we can't explicitly state that the building did not meet the criteria... it may have or may not...