Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
Updated on: 02 May 2025, 10:38
Originally posted by MartyMurray on 23 Feb 2025, 19:34.
Last edited by MartyMurray on 02 May 2025, 10:38, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by MartyMurray on 02 May 2025, 10:38, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
72% (01:38) correct
28%
(02:01)
wrong
based on 185
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
100 years ago, people who built houses on Bayberry Island must have been more concerned about hurricanes than people who have built houses there recently. A large proportion of the houses built on Bayberry Island in the past decade would be unlikely to survive a strong hurricane. In contrast, all the houses on Bayberry Island that are 100 years old are built solidly enough to withstand virtually any hurricane that would occur in the region.
The argument is flawed because it fails to consider that
(A) houses built 100 years ago on Bayberry Island that could not withstand hurricanes would have been destroyed in any strong hurricanes that have occurred since that time
(B) in terms of characteristics other than ability to withstand hurricanes, houses built on Bayberry Island in recent years may be of much higher quality than those built 100 years ago
(C) the number of houses on Bayberry Island is much greater today than it was 100 years ago
(D) the cost to Bayberry Island residents of home hurricane insurance may have decreased significantly over the past 100 years because of government subsidies
(E) the cost of building a house that can withstand a strong hurricane is significantly greater than that of building a house that cannot
The argument is flawed because it fails to consider that
(A) houses built 100 years ago on Bayberry Island that could not withstand hurricanes would have been destroyed in any strong hurricanes that have occurred since that time
(B) in terms of characteristics other than ability to withstand hurricanes, houses built on Bayberry Island in recent years may be of much higher quality than those built 100 years ago
(C) the number of houses on Bayberry Island is much greater today than it was 100 years ago
(D) the cost to Bayberry Island residents of home hurricane insurance may have decreased significantly over the past 100 years because of government subsidies
(E) the cost of building a house that can withstand a strong hurricane is significantly greater than that of building a house that cannot
24 Feb 2025, 10:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
100 years ago, people who built houses on Bayberry Island must have been more concerned about hurricanes than people who have built houses there recently. A large proportion of the houses built on Bayberry Island in the past decade would be unlikely to survive a strong hurricane. In contrast, all the houses on Bayberry Island that are 100 years old are built solidly enough to withstand virtually any hurricane that would occur in the region.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
100 years ago, people who built houses on Bayberry Island must have been more concerned about hurricanes than people who have built houses there recently.
The support provided for the conclusion is the following:
A large proportion of the houses built on Bayberry Island in the past decade would be unlikely to survive a strong hurricane. In contrast, all the houses on Bayberry Island that are 100 years old are built solidly enough to withstand virtually any hurricane that would occur in the region.
We see that the reasoning of the argument involves a comparison: The houses that are 100 years old are more sturdily constructed, "built solidly enough to withstand virtually any hurricane," than "a large proportion of the houses built" recently.
From this comparison of houses, the author draws the conclusion that people were more concerned about the effects of hurricanes 100 years ago than people are now.
The argument is flawed because it fails to consider that
This is a Logical Flaw question, and the correct answer will highlight a way in which the argument is flawed.
In other words, it will indicate a reason why the support provided does not solidly support the conclusion.
(A) houses built 100 years ago on Bayberry Island that could not withstand hurricanes would have been destroyed in any strong hurricanes that have occurred since that time
This choice is interesting.
After all, if "houses built 100 years ago on Bayberry Island that could not withstand hurricanes would have been destroyed in any strong hurricanes that have occurred since that time," then it's likely that the support for the conclusion involves a biased sample.
In other words, what could be going on is the following. On average, houses built 100 years ago were no more solidly built than houses built today, but all the less sturdy ones from 100 years ago have been destroyed by hurricanes, and only the strongest remain. As a result, the comparison of houses built today with those built 100 years ago involves all houses built today with only the strongest from 100 years ago.
So, the argument is flawed because it fails to consider that the comparison made doesn't really make sense as support for the conclusion since the houses still standing from 100 years ago are not a representative sample of those built at that time.
Keep.
(B) in terms of characteristics other than ability to withstand hurricanes, houses built on Bayberry Island in recent years may be of much higher quality than those built 100 years ago
The conclusion is about how concerned people were with the effects of hurricanes.
So, the fact that houses built today may be of higher quality in ways other than ability to withstand hurricanes doesn't make the argument flawed.
After all, even if they are of higher quality in other ways, they still are not as able to withstand hurricanes as houses from 100 years ago, and that difference is what matters for supporting the conclusion of this argument.
Eliminate.
(C) the number of houses on Bayberry Island is much greater today than it was 100 years ago
This choice doesn't highlight a flaw in the argument because what matters for determining how concerned people are with the effects of hurricanes is how they build houses, not how many houses are built.
In other words, even if there are many more houses, the fact that they are not as solidly built as houses from 100 years ago could indicate that people are not as concerned with the effects of hurricanes as people were in the past.
Eliminate.
(D) the cost to Bayberry Island residents of home hurricane insurance may have decreased significantly over the past 100 years because of government subsidies
If the cost of insurance has decreased, that fact may be a reason why people are less concerned with the effects of hurricanes. Maybe they figure they can build weak houses and count on insurance to cover any damage.
At the same time, a decrease in insurance cost doesn't highlight any flaw in the argument. After all, even if insurance costs are lower, the fact that houses built today less sturdy than those built in the past could indicate that people aren't as concerned about the effects of hurricanes as people were in the past.
Eliminate
(E) the cost of building a house that can withstand a strong hurricane is significantly greater than that of building a house that cannot
This choice is tricky to eliminate because it could seem to bring up an alternative reason why houses built today are less solid than those from 100 years ago. We might get the impression that people are just as concerned about the effects of hurricanes as they were in the past, but they build less solid houses to minimize costs.
At the same time, the issue with this choice is that, presumably, it cost more to build a more solid house than a less solid one in the past as well. So, if people were willing to spend extra to build a solid house in the past but aren't willing to do so today, then it still appears that people were more concerned about the effects of hurricanes in the past.
So, the argument works fine even though the cost of building a house than can withstand a strong hurricane is greater than that of building a house that cannot.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: A
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
100 years ago, people who built houses on Bayberry Island must have been more concerned about hurricanes than people who have built houses there recently.
The support provided for the conclusion is the following:
A large proportion of the houses built on Bayberry Island in the past decade would be unlikely to survive a strong hurricane. In contrast, all the houses on Bayberry Island that are 100 years old are built solidly enough to withstand virtually any hurricane that would occur in the region.
We see that the reasoning of the argument involves a comparison: The houses that are 100 years old are more sturdily constructed, "built solidly enough to withstand virtually any hurricane," than "a large proportion of the houses built" recently.
From this comparison of houses, the author draws the conclusion that people were more concerned about the effects of hurricanes 100 years ago than people are now.
The argument is flawed because it fails to consider that
This is a Logical Flaw question, and the correct answer will highlight a way in which the argument is flawed.
In other words, it will indicate a reason why the support provided does not solidly support the conclusion.
(A) houses built 100 years ago on Bayberry Island that could not withstand hurricanes would have been destroyed in any strong hurricanes that have occurred since that time
This choice is interesting.
After all, if "houses built 100 years ago on Bayberry Island that could not withstand hurricanes would have been destroyed in any strong hurricanes that have occurred since that time," then it's likely that the support for the conclusion involves a biased sample.
In other words, what could be going on is the following. On average, houses built 100 years ago were no more solidly built than houses built today, but all the less sturdy ones from 100 years ago have been destroyed by hurricanes, and only the strongest remain. As a result, the comparison of houses built today with those built 100 years ago involves all houses built today with only the strongest from 100 years ago.
So, the argument is flawed because it fails to consider that the comparison made doesn't really make sense as support for the conclusion since the houses still standing from 100 years ago are not a representative sample of those built at that time.
Keep.
(B) in terms of characteristics other than ability to withstand hurricanes, houses built on Bayberry Island in recent years may be of much higher quality than those built 100 years ago
The conclusion is about how concerned people were with the effects of hurricanes.
So, the fact that houses built today may be of higher quality in ways other than ability to withstand hurricanes doesn't make the argument flawed.
After all, even if they are of higher quality in other ways, they still are not as able to withstand hurricanes as houses from 100 years ago, and that difference is what matters for supporting the conclusion of this argument.
Eliminate.
(C) the number of houses on Bayberry Island is much greater today than it was 100 years ago
This choice doesn't highlight a flaw in the argument because what matters for determining how concerned people are with the effects of hurricanes is how they build houses, not how many houses are built.
In other words, even if there are many more houses, the fact that they are not as solidly built as houses from 100 years ago could indicate that people are not as concerned with the effects of hurricanes as people were in the past.
Eliminate.
(D) the cost to Bayberry Island residents of home hurricane insurance may have decreased significantly over the past 100 years because of government subsidies
If the cost of insurance has decreased, that fact may be a reason why people are less concerned with the effects of hurricanes. Maybe they figure they can build weak houses and count on insurance to cover any damage.
At the same time, a decrease in insurance cost doesn't highlight any flaw in the argument. After all, even if insurance costs are lower, the fact that houses built today less sturdy than those built in the past could indicate that people aren't as concerned about the effects of hurricanes as people were in the past.
Eliminate
(E) the cost of building a house that can withstand a strong hurricane is significantly greater than that of building a house that cannot
This choice is tricky to eliminate because it could seem to bring up an alternative reason why houses built today are less solid than those from 100 years ago. We might get the impression that people are just as concerned about the effects of hurricanes as they were in the past, but they build less solid houses to minimize costs.
At the same time, the issue with this choice is that, presumably, it cost more to build a more solid house than a less solid one in the past as well. So, if people were willing to spend extra to build a solid house in the past but aren't willing to do so today, then it still appears that people were more concerned about the effects of hurricanes in the past.
So, the argument works fine even though the cost of building a house than can withstand a strong hurricane is greater than that of building a house that cannot.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: A
Moderators:
189 posts
