Last visit was: 19 Jul 2025, 19:33 It is currently 19 Jul 2025, 19:33
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
User avatar
souvik101990
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Last visit: 17 Jan 2025
Posts: 4,321
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2,326
Location: United States (WA)
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
Posts: 4,321
Kudos: 52,763
 [128]
10
Kudos
Add Kudos
117
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,359
Own Kudos:
68,584
 [40]
Given Kudos: 1,969
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,359
Kudos: 68,584
 [40]
28
Kudos
Add Kudos
10
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
Ashokshiva
Joined: 15 Nov 2015
Last visit: 25 Sep 2023
Posts: 135
Own Kudos:
170
 [3]
Given Kudos: 178
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
GPA: 3.7
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
Posts: 135
Kudos: 170
 [3]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Supermaverick
Joined: 16 Apr 2017
Last visit: 01 Oct 2018
Posts: 34
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 82
Posts: 34
Kudos: 163
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
souvik101990

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.
User avatar
sarbjeetsingh777
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Last visit: 28 Jul 2018
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
23
 [2]
Given Kudos: 29
Schools: ISB '19 IIMA
Schools: ISB '19 IIMA
Posts: 21
Kudos: 23
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
pritha.k
Joined: 29 May 2017
Last visit: 03 Aug 2017
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 10
Posts: 7
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
chesstitans
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Last visit: 20 Nov 2019
Posts: 990
Own Kudos:
1,900
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,562
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
Posts: 990
Kudos: 1,900
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
pritha.k
Joined: 29 May 2017
Last visit: 03 Aug 2017
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
2
 [1]
Given Kudos: 10
Posts: 7
Kudos: 2
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
chesstitans
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
Oh! thank you for clearing it out! Appreciate it!
User avatar
Mo2men
Joined: 26 Mar 2013
Last visit: 09 May 2023
Posts: 2,443
Own Kudos:
1,438
 [1]
Given Kudos: 641
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Schools: Erasmus (II)
Products:
Schools: Erasmus (II)
Posts: 2,443
Kudos: 1,438
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
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.

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.
User avatar
arvind910619
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Last visit: 18 Oct 2024
Posts: 850
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 755
Status:Learning
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Products:
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
Posts: 850
Kudos: 601
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Very good question .
B seems like a trap answer .
A is more direct and thus is the answer
User avatar
Temurkhon
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Last visit: 06 Apr 2019
Posts: 413
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 43
Schools: Cambridge'16
Schools: Cambridge'16
Posts: 413
Kudos: 303
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
cause -> effect question, so the best way to undermine conclusion is:

1. provide alternate cause
2. show reverse relation
3. find data problem

Option A fits second case
User avatar
warriorguy
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Last visit: 08 Feb 2023
Posts: 379
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 144
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE:Engineering (Telecommunications)
Posts: 379
Kudos: 351
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
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.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,359
Own Kudos:
68,584
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1,969
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,359
Kudos: 68,584
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mo2men
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.
User avatar
adkikani
User avatar
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Last visit: 24 Dec 2023
Posts: 1,238
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Posts: 1,238
Kudos: 1,317
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,359
Own Kudos:
68,584
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,969
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,359
Kudos: 68,584
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adkikani
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.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
adkikani
User avatar
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Last visit: 24 Dec 2023
Posts: 1,238
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Posts: 1,238
Kudos: 1,317
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja

Let me know of my below understanding is correct:

Opinion: Only belief by author, may or may not be supported by facts/ other opinions

Main Conclusion: Need to be backed by reasoning, which could be a premise (fact) or an
intermediate opinion.

WR,
Arpit.
avatar
s8kadian
Joined: 05 Nov 2015
Last visit: 03 Jun 2020
Posts: 43
Own Kudos:
108
 [1]
Given Kudos: 60
Location: India
Posts: 43
Kudos: 108
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
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 :?
User avatar
GMATNinjaTwo
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Last visit: 18 Jul 2025
Posts: 235
Own Kudos:
1,077
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,070
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V47
GMAT 2: 770 Q49 V48
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V47
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 235
Kudos: 1,077
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
s8kadian
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 :?
s8kadian, see if this post helps!
avatar
megakee9
Joined: 24 Feb 2018
Last visit: 16 Oct 2020
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
5
 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 14
Kudos: 5
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
Appler
Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Last visit: 22 Mar 2021
Posts: 9
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 9
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7359 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts