Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 30 Jul 2014, 19:25

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 478
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 44 [1] , given: 4

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are [#permalink] New post 09 Apr 2010, 18:18
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

33% (01:51) correct 67% (02:46) wrong based on 13 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.

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 30
Location: I see you
Followers: 0

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

GMAT Tests User
Re: building inspectors [#permalink] New post 09 Apr 2010, 18:52
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
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Posts: 33
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

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

Re: building inspectors [#permalink] New post 26 Apr 2010, 08:18
what is the OA?
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 956
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 51

Kudos [?]: 675 [1] , given: 40

GMAT Tests User
Re: building inspectors [#permalink] New post 27 Apr 2010, 00:34
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
Director
User avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 956
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 51

Kudos [?]: 675 [0], given: 40

GMAT Tests User
Re: building inspectors [#permalink] New post 22 May 2010, 01:19
vscid,

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

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

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1563
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 6

Re: building inspectors [#permalink] New post 24 May 2010, 11:11
it is between B and E.

finally (B).
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tests User
Re: building inspectors [#permalink] New post 14 Jul 2010, 00:00
Let's take a shot. I am with E on this.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 172
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 22 [1] , given: 1

Re: building inspectors [#permalink] New post 14 Jul 2010, 02:14
1
This post received
KUDOS
I gota a feeling .

Its B :o

OA Plz ?
_________________


R E S P E C T


Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [1] , given: 3

Re: building inspectors [#permalink] New post 15 Jul 2010, 21:39
1
This post received
KUDOS
KissGMAT wrote:
I gota a feeling .

Its B :o

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
Director
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 509
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 66

GMAT Tests User
Re: building inspectors [#permalink] New post 16 Jul 2010, 00:41
Very good explanation by tryingharder.Is OA B?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 128
Followers: 0

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

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are [#permalink] New post 08 Mar 2012, 14:45
What is OA and could some explain please?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Posts: 183
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 20

Re: building inspectors [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 66
Location: United States
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 14

Re: After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are [#permalink] New post 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 Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Experts publish their posts in the topic 2nd try in 31 days after a disaster score of 330 Billybob112 6 17 Mar 2012, 08:42
Each Specialization - Kind of Work / Job Nature exekutive 2 21 Sep 2009, 09:37
2 After crude oil, natural gas is the United States second beyondinfinity 11 18 Jun 2006, 08:53
After crude oil, natural gas is the United States second joemama142000 6 04 Dec 2005, 16:11
After crude oil, natural gas is the United States second ywilfred 1 07 Sep 2005, 06:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by

After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.