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:
Which of the following best completes the passage below? The [#permalink]
07 Jul 2011, 13:45
41% (01:00) correct
59% (01:03) wrong based on 46 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Which of the following best completes the passage below?
The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake destroyed over half the city and changed the development of the California economy, but much of the damage was actually caused by fire. It has been estimated that as much as 90% of the total destruction was a result of fire damage rather than movement of the earth. This figure is likely exaggerated, however, because the nearly universal practice of insuring San Francisco properties against fire but not earthquake damage all but guaranteed that .
A) most damage to the city was blamed on fire B) the city would eventually be rebuilt C) insurance companies were forced to offer earthquake coverage D) residents subsequently moved to other cities where earthquake coverage was available E) buildings not damaged by fire were never repaired
Very hard lanaguage... The trick is to understand the last sentence. I go with A.
This figure is likely exaggerated, however, because the nearly universal practice of insuring San Francisco properties against fire but not earthquake damage all but guaranteed that
Yes 90% is exaggerated number , but most of the buildings in SF are insured against fire and not Earth quakes. and building oqners will get the insurance money only if they claim that fire caused the destruction , not earth quake.
As i read through the options, i checked the source of the Q bcoz the Q didn't seem like a GMAT type.. i chose A- last sentence of the argument indicates that nos are exaggerated bcoz of some reason and that reason was specified in A
I got it down as A. A tussle between A and E. E said they never repaired the buildings. But it doesnt give a reason why the number was inflated. I believe we need to take it that the value of 90% is taken from the insurance data which is why it is inflated.
Insurance data says it is 90%. Actual figure is lower <90%. Why? Because everything is blamed on insurance even though it isnt. IF we try and plug in E, we get Actual figure is <90% because those buildings not affected were not repaired. (But repairing is additional information from outside of the passage)
There are estimates that 90% of the damage was fire damage, but this figure is exaggerated. Why? Because people blamed their damage on the fire in order to get insurance coverage whereas if they would have properly blamed it on the Earthquake, they would not have coverage.
E completes the sentence in an illogical way.
Let's examine why.
This figure is likely exaggerated, however, because the nearly universal practice of insuring San Francisco properties against fire but not earthquake damage all but guaranteed that buildings not damaged by fire were never repaired
No! It is conceivable that 90% of the builings could have been damaged by fire and the buildings not damaged by fire were never repaired. E) never tells us why the 90% figure is an exaggeration.
Not convinced? Ok, alternative process...examine the language. See the word "guranteed?" Not having fire coverage does nothing to gurantee that non-fire will not be rebuilt.
Still not convinced, Ok...here's the best explanation. The stimulus is ONLY dealing with FIRE and EARTHQUAKE damage. Answer choice E) deals with all non-fire related damage. What about buildings damaged by water? Maybe buildings are insured by that, but E would have you believe buildings damaged by water were never rebuilt. What about Wind damage? Same problem.