Mayor A: In 1982 the courthouse that Roseville still needs would have cost 26 million. Now in 1992 the same building is costing the city close to 30 million to build. If it had been built in 1982 when I first showed how the building would relieve the overcrowding, Roseville would have saved at least 4 million by now.

Councillor B: Your own financial reports inform us that 26 million in 1982 is equivalent to 37 million in 1992. Adding that difference to the money Roseville has saved by not having to maintain an under-used courthose for a decade, we can only view the delay as a financial boom for Roseville.

A point at issue between Mayor A and Councillor B is whether

A. Roseville will build a courthourse in 1992
B. 37 million in 1992 dollars is equivalent to 26 million in 1992
C. Mayor A is responsible for the city's financial reports
D. Roseville actually needed a new courthouse between 1982 and 1992
E. Roseville would have expended 4 million dollars to maintain a courthouse from 1982 to 1992


Veritas has borrowed this from another Test prep company. Why is D correct? If I say that not having a car in college years was a financial boon for me, does it mean that I didn't need the car? May be I needed the car but somehow, later on by chance, not having a car turned out to be a good thing.

Secondly, Councillor B doesn't say that the court house is not needed.
Not sure.

Experts - any thoughts?

I think that there is a bit of a difference in saying "D. Mayor B: supports his argument with 'by not having to maintain an under-used courthose for a decade'" and "not needing a courthouse". In fact Mayor B's statemetn is that "Adding that difference to the money Roseville has saved by not having to maintain an under-used courthose for a decade" - we cannot get rid of the main clause. The guy is talking about money not spent on financial maintenance.

If I say that I didn't have to maintain my car. Does it mean that I didn't need it? I don't think so. I am just talking about the maintenance of a car.