After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 17 Jan 2017, 23:00

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 470
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 193 [1] , given: 4

After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2010, 18:18
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

33% (01:51) correct 67% (02:46) wrong based on 14 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are hired to check buildings with columns for stability; those columns that are deemed intact and thus do not require reinforcement with iron core are often ordered to undergo extensive testing for strength and stability anyway, for the special building inspectors are concerned about the possibility of having misjudged the ability of such columns to withstand pressure without collapsing. When the results of some of the extensive tests were reviewed, however, no columns that had initially been deemed intact after a disaster were shown to have failed the strength and stability tests that were ordered anyway. Thus, the extensive testing that the special building inspectors order for columns that they have already deemed intact after a disaster is a waste of money.

Which of the following, if true, does the most to strengthen the argument?

(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly.
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support.
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed.
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests.
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster.
_________________

-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.

If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 30
Location: I see you
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2010, 18:52
1
KUDOS
I'll go with E here, since everything else can be crossed out by POE.

Conclusion is "The extensive testing that the special building inspectors order for columns that they have already deemed intact after a disaster is a waste of money."

(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly. ( no where in the argument is there a comparison between building inspectors and special building inspectors)
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support. ( Many but not all, some could still rely on columns)
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed. ( this one is clearly incorrect since there are not multiple building inspectors reviewing natural disasters and even if there are it doesn't strengthen the argument)
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests. ( the stability was intact before the iron core was used as well, so this doesn't get us anywhere)
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster. ( the only one left and this says that the inspectors are wasting money since they are testing columns not even affected by disaster) - Correct
_________________

Be willing to fail. It's the price of greatness.

Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Posts: 33
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2010, 08:18
what is the OA?
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 76

Kudos [?]: 1270 [1] , given: 40

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2010, 00:34
1
KUDOS
IMO E.

(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly.
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support.
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed.
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests.
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster.
After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are hired to check buildings with columns for stability; those columns that are deemed intact and thus do not require reinforcement with iron core are often ordered to undergo extensive testing for strength and stability anyway, for the special building inspectors are concerned about the possibility of having misjudged the ability of such columns to withstand pressure without collapsing. When the results of some of the extensive tests were reviewed, however, no columns that had initially been deemed intact after a disaster were shown to have failed the strength and stability tests that were ordered anyway. Thus, the extensive testing that the special building inspectors order for columns that they have already deemed intact after a disaster is a waste of money.

Which of the following, if true, does the most to strengthen the argument?

(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly. [Out of scope. Incorrect]
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support. [This is a case of SHELL GAME TRAP. Incorrect]
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed. [This is a case of OPPOSITE ANSWER. The trap here is many disasters reviewed. This is just opposite to one of the premises. Incorrect]
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests. [This is rather weaking the conclusion. Incorrect]
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster.
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 76

Kudos [?]: 1270 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

22 May 2010, 01:19
vscid,

Can we have the OA and OE, if possible?
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1558
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 573 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

24 May 2010, 11:11
it is between B and E.

finally (B).
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 00:00
Let's take a shot. I am with E on this.
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 171
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 39 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 02:14
1
KUDOS
I gota a feeling .

Its B

OA Plz ?
_________________

R E S P E C T

Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [1] , given: 3

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2010, 21:39
1
KUDOS
KissGMAT wrote:
I gota a feeling .

Its B

OA Plz ?

Premise 1: After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are hired to check buildings with columns for stability;
Premise 2: those columns that are deemed intact and thus do not require reinforcement with iron core are often ordered to undergo extensive testing for strength and stability anyway, for the special building inspectors are concerned about the possibility of having misjudged the ability of such columns to withstand pressure without collapsing.
Premise 3: When the results of some of the extensive tests were reviewed, however, no columns that had initially been deemed intact after a disaster were shown to have failed the strength and stability tests that were ordered anyway.
Premise 4: Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support.
Conclusion: Thus, the extensive testing that the special building inspectors order for columns that they have already deemed intact after a disaster is a waste of money.

(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly- not concerned about Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage. Also judging the stability of column not an issue
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support.--correct(premise 3)(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed--we all kno tht it is reviewed. so wat ??
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests--specificaly mentiond abt those columns that are deemed intact and thus do not require reinforcement with iron core.
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster--absurd, OOS
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 505
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 66

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2010, 00:41
Very good explanation by tryingharder.Is OA B?
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 127
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 2

Re: After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2012, 14:45
What is OA and could some explain please?
Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Posts: 181
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 20

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2012, 15:28
firang wrote:
I'll go with E here, since everything else can be crossed out by POE.

Conclusion is "The extensive testing that the special building inspectors order for columns that they have already deemed intact after a disaster is a waste of money."

(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly. ( no where in the argument is there a comparison between building inspectors and special building inspectors)
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support. ( Many but not all, some could still rely on columns)
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed. ( this one is clearly incorrect since there are not multiple building inspectors reviewing natural disasters and even if there are it doesn't strengthen the argument)
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests. ( the stability was intact before the iron core was used as well, so this doesn't get us anywhere)
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster. ( the only one left and this says that the inspectors are wasting money since they are testing columns not even affected by disaster) - Correct

Explanation by firang looks good. What is the OA?
Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 65
Location: United States
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 14

Re: After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2012, 11:19
I took 3 minutes to answer this and came up with C. i must be wrong, but this is my reasoning:

Quote:
When the results of some of the extensive tests were reviewed, however, no columns that had initially been deemed intact after a disaster were shown to have failed the strength and stability tests that were ordered anyway.

only some of the tests were used a evidence. How can we generalize something based on a few tests. So, I thought this was the gap.

When I read C, I thought this covered this gap.

Quote:
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed.
Re: After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are   [#permalink] 09 Mar 2012, 11:19
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
24 The five specially ordered shipments 11 08 Feb 2012, 07:45
9 Naturally occurring vitamins : Weaken 11 11 May 2014, 09:34
10 Natural Mate Selection 2 26 Aug 2013, 23:03
8 It is generally agreed by scientists that the naturally 6 20 Aug 2013, 05:53
1 Fewer families lose their jobs because of major disasters 3 01 Sep 2011, 05:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by