Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 04:21 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 04:21
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Sub 505 Level|   Weaken|                                 
User avatar
WaterFlowsUp
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Last visit: 08 Nov 2021
Posts: 334
Own Kudos:
2,045
 [46]
Given Kudos: 92
Status:Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Location: United States (DE)
GPA: 3.32
WE:Information Technology (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
Products:
Posts: 334
Kudos: 2,045
 [46]
10
Kudos
Add Kudos
35
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
avatar
das.sushmit
Joined: 14 Jul 2013
Last visit: 08 May 2019
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
12
 [7]
Given Kudos: 93
Posts: 13
Kudos: 12
 [7]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
carcass
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,754
Own Kudos:
37,014
 [3]
Given Kudos: 4,856
Posts: 4,754
Kudos: 37,014
 [3]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
BrainLab
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Last visit: 26 Jan 2025
Posts: 345
Own Kudos:
3,129
 [4]
Given Kudos: 200
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.7
WE:Marketing (Telecommunications)
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
Posts: 345
Kudos: 3,129
 [4]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
01:09 straight E... B,C,D are either irrelevant or strengthen the argument. Only A could be a contender here
Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires - However, 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, that means they just don't need any training......
User avatar
AnubhavK
User avatar
Mannheim Thread Master
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Last visit: 20 Nov 2018
Posts: 117
Own Kudos:
65
 [2]
Given Kudos: 51
Status:It's now or never
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
GPA: 3
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
Posts: 117
Kudos: 65
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
E is correct - Identifies a weakness in the home builder's argument by showing that most damage occurs when no household member is present to put out the fire.
avatar
mba757
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 15 Jun 2020
Last visit: 04 Aug 2022
Posts: 305
Own Kudos:
94
 [3]
Given Kudos: 245
Location: United States
GPA: 3.3
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion: residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires [because a home builder argued that b/c more than 90% of residential fires are extinguished by a household member]
Prethink: Does the percentage of residential fires and amount of property damage correlate with one another? What if the 10% of fires equates to a lot more property damage?

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?
(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.
We want to weaken the point that sprinklers -> marginal decrease in prop. damage from residential fire. WHAT they did to learn to extinguish fires is completely irrelevant.

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.
Opposite trap – this is a strengthener, if anything. If there’s only a tiny percentage of these new houses then there is a more the reason to believe that the property damage decrease would be marginal.

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.
Out of scope – the costs have nothing to do with the immediate argument/conclusion. We want to weaken the point that sprinklers -> marginal decrease in prop. damage from residential fire

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.
Out of scope – we’re concerned with sprinklers and its applicability to property damage (by residential fires). It doesn’t matter how (and how quickly) the fire extinguished by another entity.

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.
Bingo, this shows that the property damage and percentage of residential fires aren’t necessarily correlates. The largest proportion of damage actually comes from the smaller subset of the population that doesn’t have any household member present – the 10%.
User avatar
kntombat
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 28 Feb 2020
Last visit: 19 Jan 2023
Posts: 900
Own Kudos:
519
 [1]
Given Kudos: 839
Location: India
WE:Other (Other)
Posts: 900
Kudos: 519
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?


(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires. (For a moment, I thought that this could be the answer and marked it as a contender but on coming across answer E, I ruled this out immediately.)

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope. (Out of scope, no one is talking about the scope of the new ordinance.)

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers. (Out of scope, smoke detectors haven't been mentioned in the stimulus.)

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average. (Opposite Answer, the home builder can state this point as a reason against installing sprinklers.)

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present. (this our answer, as this counters the home builder's point perfectly and weakens his argument .)

The OA is E.

Thank you.
User avatar
stackskillz
Joined: 28 Feb 2022
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
13
 [1]
Given Kudos: 165
Posts: 62
Kudos: 13
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is the quick solution I came up with:

Conc: Residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires. - Can co-exist with the conclusion above. No need to think too much. Drop

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope - This actually strengthens the argument. Since, only a small sliver of housing in the city will have the sprinklers and since 90% of fires are extinguished by household members, sprinklers might be an ineffective addition. Drop

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers - We are specifically talking about the necessity of sprinklers and preventing property damage caused by fire. Whether smoke detectors are cheaper or not doesn't impact the conclusion. Drop

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average - The speed of response of the fire dept. could be a magnitude better or worse than national average, however, it's still entirely possible that sprinklers are not that effective since they are not needed most of the time. This option actually tries to suggest that sprinklers are not needed, since fire-depts. are very responsive. Not what we're looking for (and not what you want to hear from your fire safety inspector). Drop

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present. Hits the bulls-eye. If the largest proportion of property damage results when no household member is present, the sprinklers look like a welcome addition. Also notice, that the conclusion talks about property damage but substantiates the claims with number of fires extinguished. Those 2 are related, but not the same. This option gives us a reason ,i.e., fires in unattended houses cause the most damage. Keep
User avatar
agrasan
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 534
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5,193
Location: India
Products:
Posts: 534
Kudos: 130
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
WaterFlowsUp
A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire. However, a home builder argued that because more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?

(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.
­Hi GMATNinja KarishmaB

Could you please explain why option A is not correct?
Our confidence should be reduced if most individuals are not formally trained to extinguish fires.­
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,989
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,989
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
agrasan

WaterFlowsUp
A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire. However, a home builder argued that because more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?

(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.
­Hi GMATNinja KarishmaB

Could you please explain why option A is not correct?
Our confidence should be reduced if most individuals are not formally trained to extinguish fires.­
­It is irrelevant that people are not formally trained.
We are given in the argument "more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member"
We know that even without formal training they are able to extinguish the fire so it doesn't matter whether they have training or not. Perhaps its a skill passed on from generation to generation, we don't care. As long as they are able to extinguish fires, its fine - we don't need sprinklers. 

The problem is that most damage is caused by fires that start when no one is present - say in case of short circuit. Then they need to be managed using sprinklers. Hence this weakens that sprinklers are not important. 

Answer (E)
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,832
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,832
Kudos: 986
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts