Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 28 Aug 2014, 05:17

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 36
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, International Business
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 12

The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2012, 06:24
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

62% (02:21) correct 38% (01:35) wrong based on 109 sessions
The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restrictions; but that is just a move to get some free publicity for his reelection campaign. So far this year we have had 3.5 inches of rain, slightly more than the average amount of rain for the same period over the last three years.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion of the argument above?

A. The governor did not declare drought emergencies in the previous three years.

B. City officials who have the authority to mandate water-use restrictions have not done so.

C. The snow melt that usually contributes significantly to the state's reservoirs is several inches below normal.

D. The amount of water the state can draw from rivers that cross state boundaries is limited by federal law.

E. Water-use restrictions are short-term measures and do little to reduce long-term water consumption.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 88
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 4

Re: Governor claims , new water-use restrictions [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2012, 06:50
vmdce129907 wrote:
The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restrictions; but that is just a move to get some free publicity for his reelection campaign. So far this year we have had 3.5 inches of rain, slightly more than the average amount of rain for the same period over the last three years.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion of the argument above?

A. The governor did not declare drought emergencies in the previous three years.

B. City officials who have the authority to mandate water-use restrictions have not done so.

C. The snow melt that usually contributes significantly to the state's reservoirs is several inches below normal.

D. The amount of water the state can draw from rivers that cross state boundaries is limited by federal law.

E. Water-use restrictions are short-term measures and do little to reduce long-term water consumption.


I used elimination to reach the answer in this case.

A is a general statement and is neutral so eliminated

B mentions city officials, which is out of scope..argument has nothing to do with view point of city offcials. Eliminated

D same as B, no mention of federal law, moreover, this is a general statement so is not affecting the argument, must be true for all years.

E strengthens the argument instead of weakening it

Hence C must be the answer
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Fighting again to Kill the GMAT devil
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 137
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: Oil and Gas - Engineering & Construction
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 48

Re: Governor claims , new water-use restrictions [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2012, 20:13
adineo wrote:

I used elimination to reach the answer in this case.

A is a general statement and is neutral so eliminated

B mentions city officials, which is out of scope..argument has nothing to do with view point of city offcials. Eliminated

D same as B, no mention of federal law, moreover, this is a general statement so is not affecting the argument, must be true for all years.

E strengthens the argument instead of weakening it

Hence C must be the answer



I think C strengthens the Conclusion rather than weakening it.

The conclusion is in the First line of the argument - "The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restrictions"

Counter premise in the argument says that rainfall this year had been little more than the average of what it had been in 3 previous years.

Hence The reasoning of the argument is the Claim made by Governor is false as there has been more rain this year.

In Order to weaken this reasoning that governor's claim is false, we have to prove that either this year has been more Rains Or anything related to previous years drought.

(C) in this essence strengthens the argument, by claiming that Snow melting has been less so Water is less hence governor's claim is justified.

I think (A) should be the correct response while Weakening the Governor's Claim because If the Governor did not declare drought in previous 3 years when the average rainfall had been less than what has occurred this year, then there is no point in the claim of Drought by the governor that this year be declared a Drought.
_________________

Giving Kudos, is a great Way to Help the GC Community Kudos

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Posts: 104
Location: United States
Concentration: International Business, Real Estate
GMAT Date: 10-22-2012
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 47

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Governor claims , new water-use restrictions [#permalink] New post 02 Oct 2012, 23:08
methevoid wrote:
adineo wrote:

I used elimination to reach the answer in this case.

A is a general statement and is neutral so eliminated

B mentions city officials, which is out of scope..argument has nothing to do with view point of city offcials. Eliminated

D same as B, no mention of federal law, moreover, this is a general statement so is not affecting the argument, must be true for all years.

E strengthens the argument instead of weakening it

Hence C must be the answer



I think C strengthens the Conclusion rather than weakening it.

The conclusion is in the First line of the argument - "The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restrictions"

Counter premise in the argument says that rainfall this year had been little more than the average of what it had been in 3 previous years.

Hence The reasoning of the argument is the Claim made by Governor is false as there has been more rain this year.

In Order to weaken this reasoning that governor's claim is false, we have to prove that either this year has been more Rains Or anything related to previous years drought.

(C) in this essence strengthens the argument, by claiming that Snow melting has been less so Water is less hence governor's claim is justified.

I think (A) should be the correct response while Weakening the Governor's Claim because If the Governor did not declare drought in previous 3 years when the average rainfall had been less than what has occurred this year, then there is no point in the claim of Drought by the governor that this year be declared a Drought.




I agree that A should be the answer since A gives u an insight into the last three years water level when the DROUGHT ws not declared even though the average was slightly lesser than than this year's.
if it was not declared in the last three years then why is it being declared this year?
That is why i feel that A weakens the claim.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 81
Concentration: Technology, Other
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 11

GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Governor claims , new water-use restrictions [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2014, 09:16
methevoid wrote:
adineo wrote:

I used elimination to reach the answer in this case.

A is a general statement and is neutral so eliminated

B mentions city officials, which is out of scope..argument has nothing to do with view point of city offcials. Eliminated

D same as B, no mention of federal law, moreover, this is a general statement so is not affecting the argument, must be true for all years.

E strengthens the argument instead of weakening it

Hence C must be the answer



I think C strengthens the Conclusion rather than weakening it.

The conclusion is in the First line of the argument - "The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restrictions"

Counter premise in the argument says that rainfall this year had been little more than the average of what it had been in 3 previous years.

Hence The reasoning of the argument is the Claim made by Governor is false as there has been more rain this year.

In Order to weaken this reasoning that governor's claim is false, we have to prove that either this year has been more Rains Or anything related to previous years drought.

(C) in this essence strengthens the argument, by claiming that Snow melting has been less so Water is less hence governor's claim is justified.

I think (A) should be the correct response while Weakening the Governor's Claim because If the Governor did not declare drought in previous 3 years when the average rainfall had been less than what has occurred this year, then there is no point in the claim of Drought by the governor that this year be declared a Drought.



Even i thought A was the answer on first glance but then realized C was the answer . Here is my reasoning for the same

Conclusion : Governor says state has drought but his claims are false . Reasoning for his claims to be false are there has been more rainfall than normal past few months .

We need to weaken the conclusion ? So we need to say Governor claims of drought are true ? How can this be possible if there is more rainfall than normal , may be a more rainfall could not account for a deficit of water ( less snowfall in this case ) . Less snow fall would indeed weaken the conclusion saying the claim of the governor regarding drought is false .

Hope this helps :)
Re: Governor claims , new water-use restrictions   [#permalink] 31 Mar 2014, 09:16
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state s shrutisingh 8 21 Jul 2009, 02:10
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state s leeye84 2 18 Mar 2007, 16:20
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state s pelihu 12 27 Aug 2006, 22:09
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state s vivek123 6 29 Dec 2005, 18:58
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state s amitgrover 5 20 Mar 2005, 15:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.