A design flaw in deep-sea research submarines has led to the

Here is my answer :D

No. of researches increases as no. of failure cases increases (assuming those reseraches continue till they accomplish their goal)
As no. of researches increases, obviously thier corresponding cost (associated with insurance) also increases.

Hope this is clear.

took me 2:34 to solve, but struggled between A and C. here's my take on it.

Stimulus given above is a fact set with conclusion in the question stem : cost of conducting deep sea research will continue to rise.

fact 1 : design flaw led to failure in many research projects.
fact 2 : claims against policies underwriting deep sea research have increased.
fact 3 : premiums have been raised in response
sub conclusion : these increased premiums have led to more research in fewer projects.

so correct answer could either show increased failure rate of project having more research OR will show that insurance premium will rise based on amount of work involved in a project.

A. Since the risk to insurers of underwriting research is spread over relatively few projects, insurance premiums are necessarily very high. could be kept as a contender.

B. When research projects fail, the causes of failure are generally impossible to pinpoint with accuracy. this does not have any impact on cost of premiums. hence out of scope

C. The greater the research demands placed on a given project, the more likely that project will fail. this leads to further increase in insurance premium due to increased failure rate and hence greater cost in conducting research. Correct answer

D. Most research institutions undertake so few projects that no economies of scale can be realized.economies of scales on undertaking research has no role in premiums paid for individual project. hence out of scope

E. Since many research projects are undertaken by coalitions of research institutions, inefficiencies are inevitable.[color=#FF0000]out of scope[/color]

finally out of A and C, I choose C because it impacts conclusion much more directly. Though not very much convinced

after going through tuanquang269 reply, I now see what i missed during evaluating options - cost of project. so C is a clear winner

Close calls between statements A and C. finally I chose C

A. Since the risk to insurers of underwriting research is spread over relatively few projects, insurance premiums are necessarily very high.-- Portrays the same reason as posted in the argument.
C. The greater the research demands placed on a given project, the more likely that project will fail. Correct. the original argument ends at a result that there will be greater research outcome expectations on lesser number of projects. this sentence adds the further fact that increase in research demands would cause even higher number of failures.

+C

It is a circular causal effect type

Failure(Cause)->> High $ of insurance ->> more demand ->> more failure

Correct me if m wrong in pattern recognition

Hi all,

ans is C,

to strengthen an argument you must either strengthen the assumption or fill up the gap between the assumption and a conclusion.

Argument's conslusion is: "the cost of conducting deep-sea research will continue to rise"

you must support it.
The assumption "The greater the research demands placed on a given project, the more likely that project will fail" in this case supports the conslusion, others do not.

Here is a logical chain guys, bad design->failure-> failures are insured-> rise in insurance premiums->increased costs->try to accomplish more research with fewer research projects.

Wow i solved the same question a few hours ago but with different wordings..
Same question wearing a different disguise.Even the answer options are more or less same.

A recent spate of launching and operating mishaps with television satellites led to a corresponding surge in claims against companies underwriting satellite insurance. As a result, insurance premiums shot up, making satellites more expensive to launch and operate. This, in turn, has added to the pressure to squeeze more performance out of currently operating satellites.

Which of the following, if true, taken together with the information above, best supports the conclusion that the cost of television satellites will continue to increase?

A. Since the risk to insurers of satellites is spread over relatively few units, insurance premiums are necessarily
very high.
B. When satellites reach orbit and then fail, the causes of failure are generally impossible to pinpoint with
confidence.
C. The greater the performance demands placed on satellites, the more frequently those satellites break down.
D. Most satellites are produced in such small numbers that no economies of scale can be realized.
E. Since many satellites are built by unwieldy international consortia, inefficiencies are inevitable.


It was the same question
As usual answer is here also

The conclusion in this problem is not contained within the stimulus itself, but rather in the question stem. The conclusion is that the cost of deep-sea research projects will rise in the future. The stimulus, therefore, provides the evidence, explaining that mechanical failures have increased the number of failed research projects and thus increased insurance claims by researchers, which has increased premiums for policies on these types of projects. Higher premiums make projects more expensive, causing institutions to increase their expectations of each individual project. If (C) is true, then the greater demands on projects will cause more of those projects to fail, thus pushing the cost of these projects higher still. (C) is the correct answer.

Choice (A) explains why one particular cost, insurance, is high, but nothing in the stimulus indicates that these costs will continue to rise.

The impossibility to determine why projects fail has nothing to do with an expectation of continually rising costs. Choice (B) is, therefore, beyond the scope.

Choice (D) describes one source of high costs in research projects, but there's no reason to think it will lead to continually rising costs.

Choice (E) explains that projects are often inefficient (and, therefore, more expensive than they should be) but we have no reason to believe that they will grow increasingly inefficient (so we have no reason to think that costs will continue to rise).

Source of Explanation: Kaplan Free Question of the Day

Thanks for sharing this, biswan02!

Nice explanation. But I have a doubt here.

As the rising cost is because of "A design flaw in deep-sea research submarines", if we can identify the flaw, the research projects can succeed. In that case, as there are no further claims, the premiums of the insurance cover decreases and subsequently the cost of the research projects can be reduced.

That is the reason why I marked Option B) When research projects fail, the causes of failure are generally impossible to pinpoint with accuracy.

if we cannot identify the flaw with accuracy then the actual problem will never be rectified and the cycle repeats.

Can you please clarify?

kinjiGC

the cost increases due to more insurance cost......
every time there is a failure due to insurance covered design flaw.... cost increases....
if it is not possible to identify reason of failure and therefore cannot attribute to insurance covered failure.....cost of insurance and hence overall cost of project will not increase....

hence, correct answer "c"......

this pattern is very common and important in gmat; test takers must know this.
There are many similar questions that use the same pattern; each has different level of difficulty.
This question is easier than 700 b/c C is too obvious.

The conclusion in this problem is not contained within the stimulus itself, but rather in the question stem. The conclusion is the prediction that the cost of deep-sea research projects will rise in the future. The stimulus, therefore, provides the evidence, explaining that a design flaw in the submarines used has increased the number of failed research projects and thus increased insurance claims by researchers, which has increased premiums for policies on these types of projects. Higher premiums have made projects more expensive, causing institutions to increase their expectations of each individual project.

All of the evidence in the stimulus is in the past and present. What's missing to support the conclusion in the question stem is evidence about the future.

If (C) is true, then the greater demands on projects will cause more of those projects to fail, thus pushing the cost of these projects higher still. (C) is the correct answer.

Choice (A) explains why one particular cost, insurance, is high, but nothing in the stimulus indicates that this cost will continue to rise.

The impossibility of determining why projects fail has nothing to do with an expectation of continually rising costs. Choice (B) is, therefore, not a strengthener.

Choice (D) describes one source of high costs in research projects, but there's no reason to think it will lead to continually rising costs.

Choice (E) explains that projects are often inefficient (and, therefore, more expensive than they should be), but we have no reason to believe that they will grow increasingly inefficient (so we have no reason to think that costs will continue to rise).

Actually we need to understand the question first, usually when we see strengthen or weak question we try to evaluate answer choices about which one is strengthen or weak, however, certain question asks which answer option along with the premise will strengthen or weak the the conclusion.
that what's done here.
Option C says "The greater the research demands placed on a given project, the more likely that project will fail."
this is further inc the premium n will lead to higher costs for projects.

Hope it was helpfull.

First, note the question asks you to identify an assumption and then select the answer choice that supports or validates an assumption.

Start with analyzing the passage. The passage draws the following logical chain:
-design flaw leading to more failures of research
-because projects are insured, more failures leads to more insurance claims
-more insurance claims lead to higher premiums and research cost
-higher research cost leading to fewer, but more arduous, research projects

The conclusion, presented in the question, states that the cost of conducting research will keep rising. How could having fewer, but more arduous, research projects still cause the cost of research to keep rising?

The right answer here would need to somehow explain how a decrease in the number of research projects still would lead to a continued increase in research costs. This could be due to an increased cost of insurance--likely from more failures that drive up insurance costs--or a different reason for increased costs. Since the passage draws a link between the number of failures, number of claims, cost of insurance claims, and number of projects, the easiest answer choice would explain how a reduction in the number of projects could drive up number of claims and therefore cost of insurance.

Let's look at the answer choices, starting first with which answers we can eliminate in a first pass.

A. Since the risk to insurers of underwriting research is spread over relatively few projects, insurance premiums are necessarily very high. At first glance, this maybe could work. Keep.

B. When research projects fail, the causes of failure are generally impossible to pinpoint with accuracy. Not sure about this one, it maybe could work, so keep it.

C. The greater the research demands placed on a given project, the more likely that project will fail. This does present a reason why reducing the number of projects--that are more arduous--would still increase number of failures and claims. Keep

D. Most research institutions undertake so few projects that no economies of scale can be realized. This wouldn't explain a change in cost of projects by reducing the number. It just says that the cost per project is always pretty high. Eliminate.

E. Since many research projects are undertaken by coalitions of research institutions, inefficiencies are inevitable. Has no bearing on a reduction in number of projects. This applies to any number of projects. Eliminate.

So, now we're down to three options, A, B, and C. Let's look at them again.

A. Since the risk to insurers of underwriting research is spread over relatively few projects, insurance premiums are necessarily very high. This could still be possible. It draws a link between number of projects and premiums. Keep still.

B. When research projects fail, the causes of failure are generally impossible to pinpoint with accuracy. So, this would mean projects could continue to fail, likely at the same rate. But, that wouldn't explain why having fewer projects would keep increasing the cost of projects, because I would need to believe that the rate of failure would increase. This doesn't suggest that. Eliminate.

C. The greater the research demands placed on a given project, the more likely that project will fail. Keep this, as it draws a relationship between decreasing the number of projects and rate of failure that would drive up costs.

Ok, down to the final two choices.

A. Since the risk to insurers of underwriting research is spread over relatively few projects, insurance premiums are necessarily very high.

C. The greater the research demands placed on a given project, the more likely that project will fail.

Option A would explain why premiums are higher when you have fewer projects. But, we're looking for a reason why having fewer projects would cause the rates to continue to increase. This just suggests that they would rise and then stay at a high level. Option C, on the other hand, tells me that the fewer the number of projects, the greater the likelihood they lead to an insurance claim. This would directly explain how decreasing number of projects--greater rate of failure--increase in number of claims--increase in cost of projects.

Option C is the correct answer.

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.