In several cities, the government is going ahead with : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Jan 2017, 14:15

### 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

# In several cities, the government is going ahead with

 post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 527 [1] , given: 70

In several cities, the government is going ahead with [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2012, 09:23
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

92% (02:07) correct 8% (00:31) wrong based on 39 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
A Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction.

B The government prefers leasing facilities to owning them in cases where the two alternatives are equally cost-effective.

C If facilities available for leasing come very close to meeting the government's requirements for facilities the government needs, the government can relax its own requirements slightly and consider those facilities in compliance.

D The government's construction projects would not on being completed, add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned.

E Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective.

Kindly give some explanations.

MIke i dont know how to mail u the link new to the club i
I am stuck wid da expalnations on the link of above questions
In my opnion answer should be E

If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 454
Location: United States (MA)
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 166 [0], given: 46

Re: In several cities, the government is going ahead Mike McGar [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2012, 11:20
I strongly feel that the answer is A. But negating D would shatter the conclusion.
I'm confused between A and D.

Given:
Govt is planning to build new offices when there are many vacant ones available for leasing.
The vacant ones does not satisfy todays needs.
Hence govt is not wasting money by building new offices. >> conclusion

Assumption
1. there is no way the existing buildings can be redesigned for less to fit the needs.
2. even if they decide using existing office spaces, leasing them wouldn't be cheaper than building new buildings

A Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction. >> Correct one.

B The government prefers leasing facilities to owning them in cases where the two alternatives are equally cost-effective. >>> Additional premises

C If facilities available for leasing come very close to meeting the government's requirements for facilities the government needs, the government can relax its own requirements slightly and consider those facilities in compliance. >> Provides additional info, when added this to the given argument, changes the conclusion.

D The government's construction projects would not on being completed, add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned. >>

E Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective. >>
Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 509
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 43

Kudos [?]: 259 [0], given: 269

Re: In several cities, the government is going ahead Mike McGar [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2012, 21:48
+1A

I have mailed Mike on your behalf

My thoughts are below
Premise 1 - In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities.

Premise 2 - The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories.

Conclusion - The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness

A - Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction. (Exactly, this is the answer. What we are talking about in the conclusion is fiscal wastefulness. When the leasing, even after the additional facilities, costs the same as new projects then there is no wastage)

D - The government's construction projects would not on being completed, add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned. (If the government is building the projects for themselves why would they line the projects up for leasing? Even if they do line up, those projects will have better facilities and there are chances of capital-recovery)

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 70

Re: In several cities, the government is going ahead with [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2012, 23:17
I am really confused between A and E can som1 give solid reason to believe why E is not the answer
Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 509
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 43

Kudos [?]: 259 [0], given: 269

Re: In several cities, the government is going ahead with [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2012, 00:35
Hi Archit

Can you tell why you think E should be the answer? An assumption either connects Premise 1 to Premise 2 (if it is a sub-conclusion) or Premise 2 to conclusion. Where are you fitting option E? Look for yourself. Can we put it between Premise 1 and Premise 2 or between Premise 2 and conclusion?

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 509
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 43

Kudos [?]: 259 [1] , given: 269

Re: In several cities, the government is going ahead with [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2012, 00:43
1
KUDOS
Archit143 wrote:
I am really confused between A and E can som1 give solid reason to believe why E is not the answer

Let us look at it another way. This is a very crude way of approaching Assumptions type question. We have to fit the assumption in either between the premises or between the premise and the conclusion. Let us take your option first

Option E

Case 1 : In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

Case 2 : In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

Option A

Case 3 : In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness

Case 4 : In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

Now tell me which option sounds the best?

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 509
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 43

Kudos [?]: 259 [0], given: 269

Re: In several cities, the government is going ahead with [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2012, 00:49
Archit143 wrote:
I am really confused between A and E can som1 give solid reason to believe why E is not the answer

One more thing.

Samsung Galaxy III is cost effective compared to Apple iphone5 but that does not mean Galaxy is not fiscal wastage (with no offence to the proud owners of either phones), if you can work out with a Nokia

Getting the point?

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3706
Followers: 1297

Kudos [?]: 5852 [1] , given: 66

Re: In several cities, the government is going ahead with [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2012, 12:53
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Archit143 wrote:
In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
(A) Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction.
(B) The government prefers leasing facilities to owning them in cases where the two alternatives are equally cost-effective.
(C) If facilities available for leasing come very close to meeting the government's requirements for facilities the government needs, the government can relax its own requirements slightly and consider those facilities in compliance.
(D) The government's construction projects would not on being completed, add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned.
(E) Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective.

Mike I don't know how to mail u the link

First of all, getgyan, thank you for emailing me on Archit143's behalf.

Dear Archit143
To email me, all you have to do is find any post in which I have posted, and click on my highlighted screenname. That will take you to my profile page. On the profile page, on the left side, in a column under my screen name, you will see a gray button that says "send private message." That's how you can send a private message to any GC user.

For this particular question, I will only discuss (A) & (E), since those are the two that confuse you.

In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
(A) Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction.

The classic test for an assumption, as folks above have said, is the "negation test" --- negate the statement, and if that devastates the argument, that's an assumption. You may find this blog helpful.
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/arguments- ... -the-gmat/

Here, let's assume the opposite of (A). Assume that we would save money, that it would be more cost effective, to renovate and adapt those existing offices spaces, rather than build whole new ones. Well, if that's true, then building new ones, the more expensive option, would definitely be more wasteful. That obliterates the conclusion of this argument, so this is a strong candidate for the the correct answer.

(E) Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective.
This is a subtle point. Anything that involves extreme language is wrong on the GMAT Verbal section. Extremity can involve very strong emotions, very strong judgments, or, as in this case, extreme scenarios or standards or criteria. Consider the following hierarchy of scenarios ----
before embarking on any major construction project, the government .....
(a) has a policy of reviewing cost effectiveness with an advisory board
(b) must have the cost effectiveness approved by a majority (or 2/3) of the state assembly
(c) must submit the proposal to binding arbitration that will decide whether it is cost effective and hence, whether to permit it
(d) is required by law to establish, to a majority opinion of a panel of judges/jurors/experts, that it is cost effective
[the judicial standard in civil cases]
(e) is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that it is cost effective [the judicial standard in criminal cases]
Notice that (e), the standard for decision in criminal cases, is the strictest decision-making criterion encoded in the law anywhere. Options (a) - (d) are all less serious, less imposing, than (e). In this sense, (e) is an extreme case --- saying that the judgment will be held to the highest standard known anywhere in the legal system. In essence, we are saying --- of 1000 potential projects, if even one cost ineffective project is allowed and goes through, that would be as great a tragedy as, in a 1000 criminal court cases, one innocent person is condemned to a criminal sentence. That latter is a true real-life tragedy, unfairly destroying some poor person's whole life! (That's exactly what the Founding Fathers were hoping to avoid by establishing such a demanding criterion.) Spending a bit too much money on a government construction project -- not ideal, but certainly not a tragedy of the same magnitude!! Do you see what I mean? Yes, it's not a good thing when the government overspends, but saying that it's so bad that it has to be held to the highest criterion that appears anywhere in the entire legal system --- that's extreme.
Obviously, if we negated option (E), which follows standard (e), any of (a)-(d) could still be true, and if any of those were true, it would support the conclusions. This is why (E) doesn't work.

(A) has to be the answer.

You don't have to be an expert on the legal system, but you do need to recognize that key phrase: "to establish beyond any reasonable doubt." That is the standard in every criminal case in the US legal system, again so extremely demanding and hard to demonstrate, because the system is trying to avoid the tragedy of condemning an innocent person to prison.
Nothing else in the entire legal system, in the entire government, is held to that lofty standard. Even in civil cases in the legal system, you only have to demonstrate it to a majority of the jurors to win. In a criminal cases, the decision must be unanimous --- all 12 people must agree that the person is guilty.
That's why, as soon as I saw those words in (E) --- some governmental fiscal thing held to the standard of "beyond any reasonable doubt" --- right away, I knew that was far to extreme to be a correct answer on the GMAT.

Does all this make sense?

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Re: In several cities, the government is going ahead with   [#permalink] 04 Oct 2012, 12:53
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
8 Inference Revision: Government restrictions have severely limited 4 14 Feb 2015, 01:56
20 In several cities, the government is going ahead with 28 21 Jan 2013, 14:44
3 Government restrictions have severely limited the amount of 35 28 Apr 2012, 18:50
5 In several cities, the government is going ahead with 19 02 Apr 2010, 05:17
In several cities, the government is going ahead with 4 28 Dec 2007, 10:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In several cities, the government is going ahead with

 post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.