BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Tough CR

Expert replies
by pharmxanthan » Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:11 pm
Governmnet -subsidized insurance available to homeowners makes it feasible for anyone to build a house on a section of coastline regularly struck by hurricanes. Each major storm causes billions of dollars worth of damage in such coastal areas, after which owners who have insurance are able to collect an amount of money sufficient to recoup a high percentage of their losses.

The passage provides the most support for an argument against a government bill proposing

A) that power companies be required to bury power lines in areas of the coastline regularly struck by hurricanes
B) an increase in funding of weather service programs that provide a hurricane watch for coastal areas
C) renewal of federal funding for emergency life-support programs in hurricane-stricken areas
D) establishment of an agency committed to managing coastal lands in ecologically responsible ways
E) establishment of a contingency fund protecting owners of uninsured houses in the coastal areas from catastrophic losses due to the hurriucane damage
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by paes » Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:51 pm
IMO E:

E is talking about uninsured people.
While the argument is talking about subsidize insurance and then saying "feasible for anyone to build a house".

So if uninsured people make the house then government has to fund them.
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:02 am
pharmxanthan wrote:Governmnet -subsidized insurance available to homeowners makes it feasible for anyone to build a house on a section of coastline regularly struck by hurricanes. Each major storm causes billions of dollars worth of damage in such coastal areas, after which owners who have insurance are able to collect an amount of money sufficient to recoup a high percentage of their losses.

The passage provides the most support for an argument against a government bill proposing

A) that power companies be required to bury power lines in areas of the coastline regularly struck by hurricanes
B) an increase in funding of weather service programs that provide a hurricane watch for coastal areas
C) renewal of federal funding for emergency life-support programs in hurricane-stricken areas
D) establishment of an agency committed to managing coastal lands in ecologically responsible ways
E) establishment of a contingency fund protecting owners of uninsured houses in the coastal areas from catastrophic losses due to the hurriucane damage
i chose E for this argument because the argument seems to support insurance company and just says how benefit the people get if they buy insurrance. if buy insurance, they will get money enough to recoup their losses after hurrican and the insurance also gets benefit from selling insurrance.
if the government subsidizes the money to people who didnt buy insurrance, it will harm the insurrance company's benifit.
thus the argument against the government bill if government gives money for poeple who dont want to buy insurrance.
Join the discussion

by Shawshank » Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:14 am
IMO -- E .. as explained
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shawshank Redemtion -- Hope is still alive ...
Join the discussion

by FightWithGMAT » Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:26 am
pharmxanthan wrote:Governmnet -subsidized insurance available to homeowners makes it feasible for anyone to build a house on a section of coastline regularly struck by hurricanes. Each major storm causes billions of dollars worth of damage in such coastal areas, after which owners who have insurance are able to collect an amount of money sufficient to recoup a high percentage of their losses.

The passage provides the most support for an argument against a government bill proposing

A) that power companies be required to bury power lines in areas of the coastline regularly struck by hurricanes
B) an increase in funding of weather service programs that provide a hurricane watch for coastal areas
C) renewal of federal funding for emergency life-support programs in hurricane-stricken areas
D) establishment of an agency committed to managing coastal lands in ecologically responsible ways
E) establishment of a contingency fund protecting owners of uninsured houses in the coastal areas from catastrophic losses due to the hurriucane damage
IMO E
if gov provided the compensation to uninsured for the damage, everybody would want to be uninsured. In that case gov has to shed more money than does currently by subsidizing the insurance. Moreover by becoming uninsured people can save their part of premiums. Mind that the insurance is subsidized not sponsored.
Join the discussion

by pharmxanthan » Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:53 am
OA is E. You guys are spot on! Thanks for the explanations!
Join the discussion

by reply2spg » Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:28 am
This is simple one. Other than E all are out of scope.
pharmxanthan wrote:Governmnet -subsidized insurance available to homeowners makes it feasible for anyone to build a house on a section of coastline regularly struck by hurricanes. Each major storm causes billions of dollars worth of damage in such coastal areas, after which owners who have insurance are able to collect an amount of money sufficient to recoup a high percentage of their losses.

The passage provides the most support for an argument against a government bill proposing

A) that power companies be required to bury power lines in areas of the coastline regularly struck by hurricanes
B) an increase in funding of weather service programs that provide a hurricane watch for coastal areas
C) renewal of federal funding for emergency life-support programs in hurricane-stricken areas
D) establishment of an agency committed to managing coastal lands in ecologically responsible ways
E) establishment of a contingency fund protecting owners of uninsured houses in the coastal areas from catastrophic losses due to the hurriucane damage
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Join the discussion

Re: Tough CR

by maanyaa.gupta » Sun Nov 14, 2021 3:00 am
Government-subsidized insurance available to homeowners makes it feasible for anyone to build a house on a section of coastline regularly struck by hurricanes. Each major storm causes billions of dollars worth of damage in such coastal areas, after which owners who have insurance are able to collect an amount of money sufficient to recoup a high percentage of their losses.

I understand the premise what I don't understand is the question
The passage provides the most support for an argument against a government bill proposing

Is this a weaken question?
Join the discussion