An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 03 Dec 2016, 16:32

### 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

# An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 150
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 163 [0], given: 17

An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2012, 19:04
9
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

43% (02:55) correct 57% (02:03) wrong based on 379 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an underwater oil pipe to complete the supply route of an oil system connecting the source of the oil to various power stations. The route crosses a 1.3 mile-wide river, and to build a bridge for the pipe would cost twice as much as it would to lay the pipe on the riverbed. In order to reduce the risk of water pollution caused by ruptures between the pipe's segments due to water pressure, a fairly likely occurrence at some point in the pipe's duration of use, the government rightly plans to opt for the construction of a bridge.

The first explains circumstances that call the position taken by the author into question; the second holds factual information which contradicts that position.

The first provides a description of a certain factor which may weaken the argument's favored viewpoint; the second is that viewpoint.

The first is a comparison formulated in order to establish grounds for the argument's conclusion; the second is the aim leading to that conclusion.

The first is evidence in support of the position that the argument chooses to undermine; the second is the reasoning behind the questioning of that position.

The first is a proposal that is supported by the position of the argument; the second is further evidence used to strengthen that proposal.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The argument presents two possible plans to complete the pipeline: lay it underwater; lay it over the water. The author favors the plan of the bridge. The first boldface portion weakens the bridge option by stating that it's relatively expensive. The second boldface portion is the logical reasoning behind the government's choice to choose the bridge despite its higher cost.

Where in the passage does it imply that the author favors the plan of the bridge? It only says that the government is in favor of the bridge.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by anon1 on 12 Nov 2012, 19:48, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 298
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 224 [1] , given: 32

Re: An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an und [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2012, 19:43
1
KUDOS
anon1 wrote:
An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an underwater oil pipe to complete the supply route of an oil system connecting the source of the oil to various power stations. The route crosses a 1.3 mile-wide river, and to build a bridge for the pipe would cost twice as much as it would to lay the pipe on the riverbed. In order to reduce the risk of water pollution caused by ruptures between the pipe's segments due to water pressure, a fairly likely occurrence at some point in the pipe's duration of use, the government rightly plans to opt for the construction of a bridge.

The first explains circumstances that call the position taken by the author into question; the second holds factual information which contradicts that position.
The first provides a description of a certain factor which may weaken the argument's favored viewpoint; the second is that viewpoint.
The first is a comparison formulated in order to establish grounds for the argument's conclusion; the second is the aim leading to that conclusion.
The first is evidence in support of the position that the argument chooses to undermine; the second is the reasoning behind the questioning of that position.
The first is a proposal that is supported by the position of the argument; the second is further evidence used to strengthen that proposal.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The argument presents two possible plans to complete the pipeline: lay it underwater; lay it over the water. The author favors the plan of the bridge. The first boldface portion weakens the bridge option by stating that it's relatively expensive. The second boldface portion is the logical reasoning behind the government's choice to choose the bridge despite its higher cost.

Where in the passage does it imply that the author favors the plan of the bridge? It only says that the government is in favor of the bridge.

The engineering firm suggests building pipe (for the reasons mentioned in the 1st bold face). Govt decides to go with the bridge for the reasons mentioned in the 2nd boldface.
Option D->
The first is evidence in support of the position that the argument chooses to undermine; - True. here "argument chooses to undermine" means "the author chooses to go against the engineering firm's suggestion" the position given in bold states the firm's position not Govt's
the second is the reasoning behind the questioning of that position. -> yes the 2nd bold gives a reason for the Govt's decision.
Manager
Status: Private GMAT Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 53
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 30

Re: An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an und [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2012, 08:04
anon1 wrote:
An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an underwater oil pipe to complete the supply route of an oil system connecting the source of the oil to various power stations. The route crosses a 1.3 mile-wide river, and to build a bridge for the pipe would cost twice as much as it would to lay the pipe on the riverbed. In order to reduce the risk of water pollution caused by ruptures between the pipe's segments due to water pressure, a fairly likely occurrence at some point in the pipe's duration of use, the government rightly plans to opt for the construction of a bridge.

The first explains circumstances that call the position taken by the author into question; the second holds factual information which contradicts that position.

The first provides a description of a certain factor which may weaken the argument's favored viewpoint; the second is that viewpoint.

The first is a comparison formulated in order to establish grounds for the argument's conclusion; the second is the aim leading to that conclusion.

The first is evidence in support of the position that the argument chooses to undermine; the second is the reasoning behind the questioning of that position.

The first is a proposal that is supported by the position of the argument; the second is further evidence used to strengthen that proposal.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The argument presents two possible plans to complete the pipeline: lay it underwater; lay it over the water. The author favors the plan of the bridge. The first boldface portion weakens the bridge option by stating that it's relatively expensive. The second boldface portion is the logical reasoning behind the government's choice to choose the bridge despite its higher cost.

Where in the passage does it imply that the author favors the plan of the bridge? It only says that the government is in favor of the bridge.

The author says that "...the government rightly plans to opt for the construction of a bridge". The use of "rightly" tells us that the author agrees with the plan of the govt. If this word is eliminated, then we will not be sure of author's position.

Regards,
CJ
_________________
Intern
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2013, 04:48
A tranquil scene, to be sure. But there is nothing tranquil about feelings here toward tankers - or more specifically, a pipeline promising to replace many of them. Currently, a pipeline is being proposed to bring approximately 30 trillion cubic feet of stranded gas on the North Slope of Alaska to markets. Many different competing schemes have been investigated, but the most likely to succeed is a pipeline south to the Fairbanks area, and then southeast along the Alaska Highway into Canada.
Princeton Review Representative
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 163
Followers: 139

Kudos [?]: 299 [1] , given: 0

Re: An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2013, 07:50
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
anon1 wrote:
An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an underwater oil pipe to complete the supply route of an oil system connecting the source of the oil to various power stations. The route crosses a 1.3 mile-wide river, and to build a bridge for the pipe would cost twice as much as it would to lay the pipe on the riverbed. In order to reduce the risk of water pollution caused by ruptures between the pipe's segments due to water pressure, a fairly likely occurrence at some point in the pipe's duration of use, the government rightly plans to opt for the construction of a bridge.

The first explains circumstances that call the position taken by the author into question; the second holds factual information which contradicts that position.

The first provides a description of a certain factor which may weaken the argument's favored viewpoint; the second is that viewpoint.

The first is a comparison formulated in order to establish grounds for the argument's conclusion; the second is the aim leading to that conclusion.

The first is evidence in support of the position that the argument chooses to undermine; the second is the reasoning behind the questioning of that position.

The first is a proposal that is supported by the position of the argument; the second is further evidence used to strengthen that proposal.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The argument presents two possible plans to complete the pipeline: lay it underwater; lay it over the water. The author favors the plan of the bridge. The first boldface portion weakens the bridge option by stating that it's relatively expensive. The second boldface portion is the logical reasoning behind the government's choice to choose the bridge despite its higher cost.

Where in the passage does it imply that the author favors the plan of the bridge? It only says that the government is in favor of the bridge.

the trick here is that you are not trying to change or evaluate the argument. Sure there is plenty wrong with the logic but the question asks you about the bolded phrases. Do them one at a time. How does the first sentence fit with the conclusion - The first statemetn somewhat contradicts the conclusion (why would the gov't build a bridge if it were more expensive?). Eliminate C and E for this reason.
the second is supporting information for the conclusion - eliminate A because it does not undermine the position and B becuase it is supporting information, not the viewpoint itself. D is the best answer.
_________________

Special offer! Save $250 on GMAT Ultimate Classroom, GMAT Small Group Instruction, or GMAT Liveonline when you use the promo code GCVERBAL250. Or, save$150 on GMAT Self-Prep when you use the code GCVERBAL150. Enroll at www.princetonreview.com

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 367
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 115 [0], given: 291

Re: An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2013, 04:47
Can somebody please tell me why C is wrong?
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 61
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GPA: 3
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 24 [1] , given: 43

Re: An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2013, 06:41
1
KUDOS
mohnish104 wrote:
Can somebody please tell me why C is wrong?

The first boldface goes against the argument's conclusion whereas C says 'establish grounds for the argument's conclusion'. Also, the second boldface is not an aim, it is a fact.

So C gets ruled out.

you can visit the link to see more discussions. http://gmatclub.com/forum/an-engineering-firm-has-suggested-the-construction-of-an-88046.html

Kudos if you like

Good luck!
Manager
Status: Joining Cranfield Sep 2014
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 65
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 530 Q50 V14
GMAT 2: 630 Q48 V29
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 30 [1] , given: 60

Re: An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2013, 03:59
1
KUDOS
mohnish104 wrote:
Can somebody please tell me why C is wrong?

Premise 1:- An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an underwater oil pipe to complete the supply route of an oil system connecting the source of the oil to various power stations. (Suggestion by Engineering Firm)
Premise 2:- The route crosses a 1.3 mile wide river, and to build a bridge for the pipe would cost twice as much as it would to lay the pipe on the riverbed.
Premise 3:- In order to reduce the risk of water pollution caused by ruptures between the pipe's segments due to water pressure, a fairly likely occurrence at some point in the pipe's duration of use,
Conclusion: - the government rightly plans to opt for the construction of a bridge.

(A) – Incorrect as the first is not circumstance and second is not contradicting any position.

(B) Incorrect as the first does provide the description of a certain factor but it is not weakening the view point mentioned in the 2nd Bold Face

(C) – This choice is very close to correct choice, but the point which is incorrect is the statement “comparison formulated in order to establish grounds for the argument’s conclusion”. The second bold statement is correct

(D) – It is important here to understand what position the first bold statement is supporting, because once you understand the position, you will understand the second bold statement also. The position here referred is “the low cost associated with laying of pipe on the river-bed” . The first statement indeed is evidence in support to above mentioned position and the second bold statement is the reasoning behind the questioning of that position because the second bold statement informs why you cannot have underwater oil pipline. So statement D is correct answer

(E) – The first bold statement is not a proposal, it is a comparative statement or fact and further the second bold statement is an independent statement and it is not strengthening the proposal mentioned in the first bold statement.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10434
Followers: 882

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

Re: An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2015, 01:14
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an   [#permalink] 11 Jul 2015, 01:14
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 The Hale Burton Oil Pipeline Construction Corporation has 5 12 Apr 2013, 03:44
5 The recent boom in new home construction has finally begun 7 28 Apr 2012, 20:22
2 Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation 25 30 Jan 2010, 14:09
3 An engineering firm has suggested the construction of an 10 16 Dec 2009, 01:37
Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation 19 14 Nov 2007, 19:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by