For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There has been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving. The city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?
(A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings. (B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust. (C) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another. (D) More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation. (E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.
the question is to find something supports the argument. in other words, in addition to what is mentioned in the argument, find something ELSE to support the argument.
E is an already mentioned fact but not something new. Hence, answer is C.
On a separate note... this question is really tricky. argument gave a conclusion (provided parking lot helps reduce the pollution). But no answer choice addresses this; instead they all talk about intermediate statements/conclusion.. Be careful
IMO between B/C/D. Not sure how to reson among these. IMO C
Good question.
A. out of scope of the passage E. even if 2/3 that cannot find parking just drive aroudn the city the pollution will increase C. If the buses are spending only 1/4 of their time transporting tourists and are idiling 3/4 of the time on curbs emitting fumes then this will increase the pollution. However, if they can park in a parking lot and shut off the engines then pollution will at lest be reduced.
For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There has been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving. The city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly support the argument?
a) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings. b) Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other then engine exhaust. c) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another. d) More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single mean of transportation. e) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.
a) out- as it is weakens the arg b) out- irrelevant c) out-talks @ transportation of tourists. The passage talks @ pollution from exhausts and not from no of tourists visiting the place d) out- again talks @ no of tourists. No has nothing to do with the pollution e) in- Some buses unable to find parking place,keep moving around the place. This supports the arg that lack of parking space was resulting in more pollution.Also the passage tells that pollution while idling is equivalent to that produced during driving
c) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.
This option states that its only 1/4 th of the time do the tour buses actually transport tourists. The rest of the 3/4th time they are either idle or looking for parking space. Therefore is directly strengthens the argument.
Option E on the other hand is close but says SOME which makes it less preferable over option C.
the question is to find something supports the argument. in other words, in addition to what is mentioned in the argument, find something ELSE to support the argument.
E is an already mentioned fact but not something new. Hence, answer is C.
On a separate note... this question is really tricky. argument gave a conclusion (provided parking lot helps reduce the pollution). But no answer choice addresses this; instead they all talk about intermediate statements/conclusion.. Be careful
That's correct!
mysterio
Re: For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito [#permalink]
For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There has been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving. The city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument? (A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings. (B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust. (C) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another. (D) More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation. (E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.
I thought it to be B initially but as i write this explanation I could see why it's wrong.... even if buildings are not threatened by pollution other than Palitito's exhaust, then also this comment has no bearing on my conclusion that providing parking for 1/3 buses would reduce pollution and hence damage. It could still be possible that rest 2/3 buses out on road cause major pollution.
A can be crossed out because stimulus specifically talks building damage due to pollution from tour buses.
Again D could be taken out on similar lines .... number of tourist preferring tour buses has no bearing on reducing pollution from tour buses. It could have been a strengthener for a case considering pollution due to tour buses and other means of transportation, but here it does not have any impact on scheme of providing parking to tour bus.
out of C and E .... i feel E to have a much narrower scope as it talks abt some buses tht a unable to find a parking spot.
on the other hand C talks about tour buses in general spending 1/4 time travelling while 3/4 of their time idle, thus providing parking to tour buses would effectively reduce the pollution during curb side parking.
Search
MAYTue
Last Day $100 Off
$100 DiscountLast Day to Save!
Register
Login | Unanswered | Active topics | Tags list by forum
Oldest
