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.
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:
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 17 Oct 2018, 02:56
30
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95% (hard)
Question Stats:
44% (02:03) correct 56% (02:23) wrong based on 1108 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simply by expanding residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums. The condominium sales will most likely be insufficient unless incentives for investment in local small business are offered. The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the reasoning in the argument above?
(A) When several nearby cities recently attempted to revitalize their city centers by expanding luxury residential space, small businesses rushed to take advantage of the new market, significantly contributing to the success the revitalization projects.
(B) In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.
(C) The city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center was largely unsuccessful.
(D) An increase in luxury condos would substantially increase property tax revenue in the city center.
(E) Before small businesses could open near the proposed luxury condominiums, significant investment would be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area.
Verbal Question of The Day: Day 36: Critical Reasoning
Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day:E-mail | RSS For All QOTD Questions Click Here
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Jun 2017, 11:22
11
5
The city planner's conclusion is stated in the last sentence: "The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail." How does the city planner arrive at this conclusion?
In the first sentence, the city planner essentially asks, "If we only expand residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums, will our city center be adequately revitalized?" The answer, according the city planner, is, "No. Offering expanded residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums is not enough to revitalize the city center."
So if condominium sales will most likely be insufficient on their own, what else is needed? According to the author, the condominium sales will only sufficiently revitalize the city center if incentives for investment in local small business are also offered. In other words, high-priced condos are not enough; in order revitalize the city center, we need both high-priced condos AND incentives for investment in local small business.
Restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries are examples of local small businesses. Thus, the author implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses.
If the city council is NOT aggressive in attracting small businesses to the city center, the city center will not be successfully revitalized. The author implies that the revitalization project will only be successful if high-priced condos are offered AND if small businesses are attracted to the city center.
Now that we understand the author's reasoning, let's look for an answer choice that, if true, most weakens that reasoning:
(A) According to the passage, we need both high-priced condos AND small businesses in order to successfully revitalize the city center. The city planner implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses. But what if those small businesses would come to the city center on their own, without any incentives or efforts on the part of the city council? Choice (A) is evidence that the small businesses might come to the city center on their own to take advantage of the new market. If the same thing were to happen in the city described in the passage, there would be no need for the city council to aggressively attract small businesses or to offer incentives for investment in local small business. Thus, choice (A) is evidence that the city planner's logic is not sound, so let's keep it.
(B) The city planner does not imply that proximity to service industries is the most important factor that buyers consider when choosing a residence. The author simply suggests that the revitalization project will fail if the city council does not aggressively attract small businesses to the city center, without explaining why those small businesses are necessary. Thus, choice (B) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.
(C) We don't know why "the city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center" was largely unsuccessful. Perhaps that attempt was a failure because the city council was not aggressive or did not offer incentives for investment in those restaurants. Or perhaps the council attempted to attract those restaurants before making plans to expand residential space, in which case investors may have seen no reason to invest in restaurants located in that part of the city. Choice (C) does not weaken the author's argument and can be eliminated.
(D) Choice (D) describes a potential financial benefit that would result from the expansion of residential space in the form of high-priced (or "luxury") condos. The author does not deny that luxury condos would have other benefits (tax revenue, job creation, etc). Instead, the author implies that the benefits will not be sufficient to revitalize the city center unless small businesses are also attracted. Choice (D) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.
(E) The city planner does not deny that significant investment might be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area. Regardless, the city planner believes that attracting small business is necessary if the city is to revitalize the center. Choice (E) strengthens the city planner's argument because it is evidence that incentives must be offered in order to attract the significant investment that would be needed. Eliminate (E).
Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Jun 2017, 17:18
1
Option A
A) states the link between revitalization project and small business B)Irrelevant to revitalization project c) talks only about hotels, what about other business, eliminate D) Irrelevant E) Not related to the conclusion, success of revitalization project
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jun 2017, 01:16
souvik101990 wrote:
Verbal Question of The Day: Day 36: Critical Reasoning
Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day:E-mail | RSS For All QOTD Questions Click Here
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simply by expanding residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums. The condominium sales will most likely be insufficient unless incentives for investment in local small business are offered. The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the reasoning in the argument above?
(A) When several nearby cities recently attempted to revitalize their city centers by expanding luxury residential space, small businesses rushed to take advantage of the new market, significantly contributing to the success the revitalization projects.
(B) In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.
(C) The city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center was largely unsuccessful.
(D) An increase in luxury condos would substantially increase property tax revenue in the city center.
(E) Before small businesses could open near the proposed luxury condominiums, significant investment would be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area.
Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.
Even If A appears to weaken the conclusion, it need not necessarily weaken.If something is true in other cities, then it does not necessarily mean that something will hold valid in similar case in some different city. Option D seems to provide a reason to weaken the conclusion that even without the local business in place the sales of condominiums may be efficient.
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jun 2017, 02:04
1
1
This is a weakener question, that means we have to choose the option which weakens the conclusion of the argument. Prethinking: As we read the argument, we can find the conclusion i.e. the revitalization project will fail if the city council does not bring small businesses in the city center. That means we need to find an option which will present a situation under which the project will not fail. Based on this understanding, we can go through the answer choices and choose the correct one. (A) When several nearby cities recently attempted to revitalize their city centers by expanding luxury residential space, small businesses rushed to take advantage of the new market, significantly contributing to the success the revitalization projects. -->CORRECT this exactly matches with our prethinking. this option gives us an example of nearby cities where the same thing was done by the authority, but small businesses, without any initiative by the city council, rushed in to the city center to take advantage of this oppurtunity. Note that this option is not ensuring the success of the project but is giving us a reason to think that the project might not fail, i.e. the property of a weakener (B) In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.--> this a perfect example of an iSWAT answer choice i.e. "incorrect similarly worded attractive terminology". It uses the same terminology as used in the argument but fails to give us a solid weakener which will enure the success of the project. (C) The city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center was largely unsuccessful.--> Incorrect and irrelevant, we are not concerned about the attempts of the city council, we are concerned about the success or the failure of the project (D) An increase in luxury condos would substantially increase property tax revenue in the city center.-->Icorrect and irrelevant, no informaion is provided by the argument regarding the effect of increased property tax revenue in teh city center (E) Before small businesses could open near the proposed luxury condominiums, significant investment would be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area.--> Incorrect and irrelevantthe argument talks nothing about the required investment and its effects on the project
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jun 2017, 11:16
I am confused between a and e. Isn't the question about weakening the reasoning provided? The last line kind of feels like an action plan. A plan to make the premise work out maybe? Its super confusing. If the reasoning is building ......etc then the anwser should be E i think. Otherwise A.obviously.
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jun 2017, 14:21
1
It is quite confusing to identify the conclusion and premises of the argument. => the conclusion is the luxurious condonium and small businesses.
B talks about "statewide" => out of scope E states that city must be revitalized so that small businesses thrive => out D is wrong because we know nothing about how tax revenue will help the city
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jun 2017, 18:33
1
chesstitans wrote:
It is quite confusing to identify the conclusion and premises of the argument. => the conclusion is the luxurious condonium and small businesses.
B talks about "statewide" => out of scope E states that city must be revitalized so that small businesses thrive => out D is wrong because we know nothing about how tax revenue will help the city
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jun 2017, 04:07
GMATNinja wrote:
The city planner's conclusion is stated in the last sentence: "The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail." How does the city planner arrive at this conclusion?
In the first sentence, the city planner essentially asks, "If we only expand residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums, will our city center be adequately revitalized?" The answer, according the city planner, is, "No. Offering expanded residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums is not enough to revitalize the city center."
So if condominium sales will most likely be insufficient on their own, what else is needed? According to the author, the condominium sales will only sufficiently revitalize the city center if incentives for investment in local small business are also offered. In other words, high-priced condos are not enough; in order revitalize the city center, we need both high-priced condos AND incentives for investment in local small business.
Restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries are examples of local small businesses. Thus, the author implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses.
If the city council is NOT aggressive in attracting small businesses to the city center, the city center will not be successfully revitalized. The author implies that the revitalization project will only be successful if high-priced condos are offered AND if small businesses are attracted to the city center.
Now that we understand the author's reasoning, let's look for an answer choice that, if true, most weakens that reasoning:
(A) According to the passage, we need both high-priced condos AND small businesses in order to successfully revitalize the city center. The city planner implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses. But what if those small businesses would come to the city center on their own, without any incentives or efforts on the part of the city council? Choice (A) is evidence that the small businesses might come to the city center on their own to take advantage of the new market. If the same thing were to happen in the city described in the passage, there would be no need for the city council to aggressively attract small businesses or to offer incentives for investment in local small business. Thus, choice (A) is evidence that the city planner's logic is not sound, so let's keep it.
Your explanation is spot on as usual. However, I do not like the choice A. Citing another person/city/entity..etc does not guarantee that the object at hand will follow the same. If If I apply the same on this question, the plan might work or do not. In OG question, citing another entity is considered wrong answer.
What do I miss?
If you have an OG question that resemble against my thoughts, I appreciate if you can mention the like.
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Jun 2017, 21:11
GMATNinja wrote:
The city planner's conclusion is stated in the last sentence: "The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail." How does the city planner arrive at this conclusion?
In the first sentence, the city planner essentially asks, "If we only expand residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums, will our city center be adequately revitalized?" The answer, according the city planner, is, "No. Offering expanded residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums is not enough to revitalize the city center."
So if condominium sales will most likely be insufficient on their own, what else is needed? According to the author, the condominium sales will only sufficiently revitalize the city center if incentives for investment in local small business are also offered. In other words, high-priced condos are not enough; in order revitalize the city center, we need both high-priced condos AND incentives for investment in local small business.
Restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries are examples of local small businesses. Thus, the author implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses.
If the city council is NOT aggressive in attracting small businesses to the city center, the city center will not be successfully revitalized. The author implies that the revitalization project will only be successful if high-priced condos are offered AND if small businesses are attracted to the city center.
Very tricky question. Amazing explanation GMATNinja. We need such questions to fine tune our practice.
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Jul 2017, 20:23
1
Mo2men wrote:
Dear GMATNinja
Your explanation is spot on as usual. However, I do not like the choice A. Citing another person/city/entity..etc does not guarantee that the object at hand will follow the same. If If I apply the same on this question, the plan might work or do not. In OG question, citing another entity is considered wrong answer.
What do I miss?
If you have an OG question that resemble against my thoughts, I appreciate if you can mention the like.
Thanks in advance for you help.
We don't need an answer choice that GUARANTEES that the revitalization project will succeed. We simply need an answer choice that MOST weakens the reasoning in the passage. The evidence presented in choice (A) weakens the argument, even though it certainly does not guarantee that the project will succeed.
For example, if 10 cities were able to reduce traffic congestion by building an underground subway system, this evidence supports the idea that other cities could do the same. However, the evidence certainly does not guarantee that the same plan will ALWAYS work.
_________________
Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Jul 2017, 01:03
Hi GMATNinja, Can you suggest if there are two opinions in an argument by an author (for eg in this case, the first and last sentence) how do we arrive at the main conclusion? WR, Arpit
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Jul 2017, 19:50
adkikani wrote:
Hi GMATNinja, Can you suggest if there are two opinions in an argument by an author (for eg in this case, the first and last sentence) how do we arrive at the main conclusion? WR, Arpit
Thanks for the question! Try looking at the first sentence alone: "Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simply by expanding residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums." If the reader were given only this sentence, would that reflect the author's main point? Does the author want the reader to walk away simply thinking that revitalization will be inadequate if they only expand residential space with high-priced condos? What does the author want to happen? Does the author simply want to provide the theory stated in the first sentence?
No! The author wants to convey that "the city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center" if the project is not to fail. The author's main goal is to convey THAT message, not simply to provide the information in the first sentence.
So, in these cases, try asking yourself, "What is the author's main purpose? What does the author want to happen? What does the author want the reader to do?" These questions can help you determine the conclusion.
Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Nov 2017, 02:46
1
GMATNinja wrote:
Thanks for the question! Try looking at the first sentence alone: "Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simply by expanding residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums." If the reader were given only this sentence, would that reflect the author's main point? Does the author want the reader to walk away simply thinking that revitalization will be inadequate if they only expand residential space with high-priced condos? What does the author want to happen? Does the author simply want to provide the theory stated in the first sentence?
No! The author wants to convey that "the city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center" if the project is not to fail. The author's main goal is to convey THAT message, not simply to provide the information in the first sentence.
So, in these cases, try asking yourself, "What is the author's main purpose? What does the author want to happen? What does the author want the reader to do?" These questions can help you determine the conclusion.
I hope that helps!
GMATNinja -- with reference to your statement above
I cant help but to remember Sherlock Holmes saying "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Because - here however A dose not weakens the statement "sales will most likely be insufficient unless xyz happens and city council must be aggressive in making xyz happen
All the other choices seem to be absolutely irrelevant
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Nov 2017, 08:37
1
s8kadian wrote:
I cant help but to remember Sherlock Holmes saying "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Because - here however A dose not weakens the statement "sales will most likely be insufficient unless xyz happens and city council must be aggressive in making xyz happen
All the other choices seem to be absolutely irrelevant
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Nov 2018, 22:44
I think that (B) is not the answer because it tackles the 'given fact.' We should accept 'small businesses are needed for revitalization' as a fact. The point we should focus on is that 'whether or not the strong incentives from the city council are needed to attract the small businesses.' This is the part where we should tackle, and (A) does that job. (A) could be tricky because we usually become skeptical about choices that brings a case. This might not be an assumption, but should be aware that it could sometimes be a reason to strengthen or weaken the argument.
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jan 2019, 23:59
Reasoning of the argument: City planner indicates that if there’s no investment to attract local small businesses. So the CP is claiming that the council must draw new service industries to the center if the council wants their revitalization project to be successful.
Weaken: No investment still successfully attracts small businesses & services
(A) When several nearby cities recently attempted to revitalize their city centers by expanding luxury residential space, small businesses rushed to take advantage of the new market, significantly contributing to the success the revitalization projects.
Well, this answer choice is not my favorite. I admit I dumped it at the first sight….but I came back to it after finishing reading other choices. Then I found it’s actually better than the other four
(B) In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.
We can conclude that the sales of the condos actually suffers due to other reason.
(C) The city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center was largely unsuccessful. There are many reasons that this answer choice is wrong 1) The unsuccessful attempt of new restaurants doesn’t necessarily implicate that the attraction of other services will also be unsuccessful. 2) What get you here today won’t get you there tomorrow.
(D) An increase in luxury condos would substantially increase property tax revenue in the city center.
Property tax? Not my concern
(E) Before small businesses could open near the proposed luxury condominiums, significant investment would be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area
This does nothing to the argument.
gmatclubot
Re: City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl
[#permalink]
20 Jan 2019, 23:59
close
44% (02:03) correct 
