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

Redeem

1000 CR test 13 Q 5

Expert replies
by Rashmi1804 » Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:12 am
Financing for a large construction project was provided by a group of banks. When the money was gone before the project was completed, the banks approved additional loans. Now, with funds used up again and completion still not at hand, the banks refuse to extend further loans, although without those loans, the project is doomed.
Which of the following, if true, best explains why the bank’s current reaction is different from their reaction in the previous instance of depletion of funds?
(A) The banks have reassessed the income potential of the completed project and have concluded that total income generable would be less than total interest due on the old plus the needed new loans.
(B) The banks have identified several other projects that offer faster repayment of the principal if loans are approved now to get those projects started.
(C) The banks had agreed with the borrowers that the construction loans would be secured by the completed project.
(D) The cost overruns were largely due to unforeseeable problems that arose in the most difficult phase of the construction work.
(E) The project stimulated the development and refinement of several new construction techniques, which will make it easier and cheaper to carry out similar projects in the future.

OA : A
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by orel » Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:09 am
Hello:

here is what i think about each answer choice:
We have to find the reason why the banks acted the way they did based on the given information.

B, D, and E are out of scope:
There is no info about other projects in the passage.
Unforeseeable problems of the project were not discussed.
Development of new techniques was not discussed either.
C: there is no info about secured construction loans.

A is correct. At first, there was a certain amount of loan given by the banks for the construction project to be complete. At some point of time the borrowers ran out of money. Banks loaned extra sum. When that was not enough either, banks concluded that the total income generable would be less than total interest due on the old plus the needed new loans.

Thanks,
Join the discussion

by mbadrew » Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:08 am
B,C,D,E don't make any sense. Between. I'll go with A because banks pull out of a deal only if they know that they can't make any money on the project. It's kind of the government bailout projects deal.

IMO it's A
Join the discussion

by delhiboy1979 » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:34 am
Another vote for A. The only option that shows that the ROI for the bank will not suffice.
Join the discussion

by yashanth.ponnanna » Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:45 am
We have to look for an explanation where a reason specific to the bank's denial for approval of loan is mentioned.

Only option "A" mentions the reason why any bank would refuse to grant a loan.
Join the discussion

A is good because it says the company does not have sufficient funds to even pay off interest on re-valuation.

B is out of scope, there are no projects mentioned in the argument

C is bring borrowers into the argument, again out of scope

D strengthens the reason why the bank should not offer a loan to the contruction company, but does not provide a reason

E is out of scope, there is no mention of any achievements of the project
Regards,
Arvind
Join the discussion

by Robinmrtha » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:17 pm
Its a for sure.....
Join the discussion

by kris77 » Fri May 13, 2016 11:31 pm
I think A is the right answer here.
Join the discussion