Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped [#permalink]
23 Sep 2012, 10:54
60% (02:13) correct
40% (01:12) wrong based on 252 sessions
Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land, contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.
Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?
This year several housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape. The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years. The population of City X is projected to grow by 4% this year, compared with only 3% for last year. The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year. Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, have remained steady over the past year.
As per Powerscore CR - Flaw in the reasoning should not bring outside information in choices, which this question does. This question is more like weakening question.
I donot think that there is any new info as such, utilized by correct answer.
The way I see the problem - Premise 1 - residential developers have stopped buying land, Premise 2 - contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs.
Both these premises are giving hints that - new housing developments are not happening across the city.
Correct Answer, if true thus suggests that since there are many new housing projects coming up, the Reasoning concluded is false and hence the premises are contradictory.
Thus if correct answer is true there are housing developments happening in the city and thus the reasoning concluded that - "There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously." is False.
i do not see any new info in correct answer, in fact by contradicting the Premise it makes the flaw in reasoning very much visible. _________________
Giving Kudos, is a great Way to Help the GC Community Kudos
If the question were "weaken", then C would be a possible answer.
"C" is a conclusion that directly contradicts the conclusion reached in the passage. The passage concludes that fewer new residents moved to City X than previously. (C) says that more new residents are coming in.
A flaw in the reasoning can bring outside information if it helps explain the conclusion in a different way. The passage says that because of poor jobs, fewer residents coming to the city.
(A) is saying okay, we have poor jobs but that's changing because a bunch of new projects just got onto the market that were "frozen" by legal red tape. Now they are open and job situation should improve. This reasoning would lead to a different conclusion and would reveal the "flaw" in the prior reasoning.
(C) doesn't really help us deal with the reasoning. It simply jumps to the conclusion and provides a conclusion that contradicts the one from the passage. Even so, population growth might not be directly comparable to "# of residents" coming to city X since population growth can either be INTERNAL or EXTERNAL.
The population might grow from within the city if everybody decides to have a lot of kids. Or it can be external with residents coming in from elsewhere. (C) doesn't fully capture just EXTERNAL which is what the reasoning from the passage is focused on. _________________
This argument relate to number and statistic. I agree with gmatpill that, if the question is "Weaken", the answer choice will be C. However, the question is "flaw". Choice A take this job better. Choice A clearly shows that because the lands were hold up because of one policy. So, the construction developers did not buy lands any more. Instead, they'll wait for the expire date of above policy.
Choice C makes a trap that the decrease in percentage will cause the decrease in number. _________________
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped [#permalink]
27 Nov 2013, 01:05
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: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped
27 Nov 2013, 01:05