|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 479
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
35
[1] , given: 4
|
After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are [#permalink]
09 Apr 2010, 19:18
1
This post received KUDOS
Question Stats:
33% (01:51) correct
66% (02:46) wrong based on 6 sessions
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 30
Location: I see you
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[1] , given: 1
|
Re: building inspectors [#permalink]
09 Apr 2010, 19:52
1
This post received 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 [?]:
1
[0], given: 9
|
Re: building inspectors [#permalink]
26 Apr 2010, 09:18
what is the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 958
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 38
Kudos [?]:
559
[1] , given: 40
|
Re: building inspectors [#permalink]
27 Apr 2010, 01:34
1
This post received 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.
_________________
Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 958
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 38
Kudos [?]:
559
[0], given: 40
|
Re: building inspectors [#permalink]
22 May 2010, 02:19
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1568
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
123
[0], given: 6
|
Re: building inspectors [#permalink]
24 May 2010, 12:11
it is between B and E.
finally (B).
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1482
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
61
[0], given: 13
|
Re: building inspectors [#permalink]
14 Jul 2010, 01:00
Let's take a shot. I am with E on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 172
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
18
[1] , given: 1
|
Re: building inspectors [#permalink]
14 Jul 2010, 03:14
1
This post received 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 [?]:
13
[1] , given: 3
|
Re: building inspectors [#permalink]
15 Jul 2010, 22:39
1
This post received 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: 508
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
50
[0], given: 66
|
Re: building inspectors [#permalink]
16 Jul 2010, 01:41
Very good explanation by tryingharder.Is OA B?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 129
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 2
|
Re: After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are [#permalink]
08 Mar 2012, 15:45
What is OA and could some explain please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Posts: 184
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
11
[0], given: 20
|
Re: building inspectors [#permalink]
08 Mar 2012, 16:28
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: 67
Location: United States
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 14
|
Re: After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are [#permalink]
09 Mar 2012, 12:19
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, 12:19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|