Last visit was: 21 May 2024, 03:08 It is currently 21 May 2024, 03:08
Toolkit
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

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.

# Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
CEO
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 2515
Own Kudos [?]: 2112 [0]
Given Kudos: 1976
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5154 [0]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 439
Own Kudos [?]: 85 [0]
Given Kudos: 147
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5154 [0]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
zoezhuyan wrote:
Dear MartyTargetTestPrep,
I struggled between B and E, eventually, I [picked up E, because I have't figure out the link between weather and double doors.
B says Inverness, where use double doors, has a harsh winter, I think it is very cold, then I will close the door to keep warm, and the fewer doors, the better. anyway walls are more resistant than doors, on the other hand, if it is holy hot, then I would like double doors, open doors as more as possible to keep the room not so hot.

Notice, the passage does not actually say "double doors." Rather it makes fairly clear that the banks have two sets of doors, one of which sets comes after the other, and that only one set can be opened at a time.

Probably, you now see the connection to cold weather. A second set of doors that does not open until the other set is closed would certainly help to keep the cold winter air from coming into the bank and the heated air from escaping.

Quote:
E, I thought because the more police officers, the fewer robberies, then the link between robberies and double doors will be weaker.

We don't really know what (E) means. More police officers could mean fewer robberies. At the same time, it could instead be the case that the reason why there are more police officers is that there are more robberies.

This choice provides us with information that we can use to create a variety of unsupported stories, and, in answering critical reasoning questions, we have to be careful not to spin unsupported stories.
Intern
Joined: 04 Jun 2021
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 65
Location: India
Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
KyleWiddison wrote:
voodoochild wrote:
Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking doors at its entrance. In the town of Inverness, on the other hand, the entrances to nearly all banks are equipped with two sets of locking doors, operated by a mechanism that allows only one set of doors to be open at a time. It is clear, then, that banks in Inverness experience more robbery attempts than do those in La Rinconada, and have thus adopted the extra doors as a security measure.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?

a) Last year the number of bank robberies in La Rinconada was almost one-half greater than the corresponding figure for the previous year.
b) Inverness is known for its harsh winters, while the climate of La Rinconada is quite temperate year-round.
c) The mechanism of the double doors used by banks in Inverness allows bank security personnel to lock the doors remotely.
d) Bank robbery attempts are typically unsuccessful, and, even when the robbers do manage to escape with stolen money, the sum is usually quite small.
e) Inverness has almost twice as many police officers per capita as does La Rinconada.

Why is A) not a weakener? If the # of bank robberies in La Rin is > that in Inverness, the security is obviously out of question.

I'm responding to a PM on this one. I will start by saying the correct answer will be more logical to people who live in climates where double doors are used to maintain inside temperatures, but you can get to the answer by working through your CR process.

Assumptions fill in the logical gaps between premises and conclusions. If you want to weaken an argument you need to attack an assumption. In this question the premises state that Inverness has double doors and La Rinconada has single doors. The conclusion states that the double doors were for robbery prevention against Inverness' higher robbery rate. How do we get from double doors to robbery? We are assuming that the double doors are a method for preventing robbery (this is the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion).

Answer choices A, D, and E can quickly be eliminated for irrelevance to the issue of doors and robbery prevention. Since the correct answer is B, let's first analyze C. Choice C states that the double doors can be locked remotely. That seems to strengthen the assumption that the double doors are for robbery prevention. That choice feels very relevant to the argument but it's relevant in the wrong direction. We are trying to weaken the argument so we have to attack the assumption that doors are for robbery prevention, not strengthen it.

That only leaves us with choice B. Again, I will admit this requires a bit of a mental stretch for some, but can you think of the impact that climate has on door selection or use? Sure, when it's warm I sometimes leave my door open, but when it's cold or stormy I will absolutely close my door. This choice does provide information to suggest that the double doors may not have been installed for robbery prevention and instead as a protection against climate.

Don't be too quick to call some answer choices like this one out of scope. These questions can introduce new information not previously stated in the argument. The question is whether that new information attacks an assumption and therefore weakens the argument.

KW

The mechanism of the double doors used by banks in Inverness allows bank security personnel to lock the doors remotely - This means that the double doors are aiding the bank security personnel to lock them remotely rather than doing it manually and that can be one of the reasons to have double doors, right? That they are not made to prevent robbery but to help security. Also, as far as choice B is concerned we don't know whether they keep the door shut throughout the day. What if they just close it outside working hours? In that case, no one is inside the bank then who are they protecting from the cold? Does this make sense? Please help me here.
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2020
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [1]
Given Kudos: 7
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 3: 730 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.3
Re: Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
1
Kudos
A very poor question IMO
As for option C: We can argue that remotely locking doors do not correspond to security but rather convenience.
Option B: Like thousands of options to questions in the GMAT Verbal question bank, this option could have been discarded as irrelevant. I said 'COULD' because although it is a possible answer, it still relies on a big assumption for which no reference in the prompt is given e.g. country A is in a temperate region, etc.
Intern
Joined: 04 Jul 2021
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: 25 [0]
Given Kudos: 7
Re: Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
What an utterly ridiculous question.

I arrived at B by process of elimination, thus getting the question correct, but I really wanted to be wrong.

The introduction of outside evidence in answer choices is fine, and is clearly utilised in OG questions. The outside evidence here, however, requires further outside knowledge. Namely, that double doors are utilised as a means of conserving heat in buildings. I live in a hot climate and thus I've never encountered this phenomenon.

I believe that real GMAT questions are never this geographically discriminatory
Intern
Joined: 17 Aug 2021
Posts: 39
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 298
Re: Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
Honestly this is not a good question. B is too much of a stretch. This question is a great example of third party questions being sub-par.
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2020
Posts: 155
Own Kudos [?]: 75 [0]
Given Kudos: 120
Location: Georgia
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V38
GPA: 3.71
Re: Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
One of the worst questions out there. This question alone makes manhattan prep less attractive.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that doors are there for temperature reasons.

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 10 May 2020
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Re: Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
KyleWiddison wrote:
I'm responding to a PM on this one. I will start by saying the correct answer will be more logical to people who live in climates where double doors are used to maintain inside temperatures, but you can get to the answer by working through your CR process.

Assumptions fill in the logical gaps between premises and conclusions. If you want to weaken an argument you need to attack an assumption. In this question the premises state that Inverness has double doors and La Rinconada has single doors. The conclusion states that the double doors were for robbery prevention against Inverness' higher robbery rate. How do we get from double doors to robbery? We are assuming that the double doors are a method for preventing robbery (this is the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion).

Answer choices A, D, and E can quickly be eliminated for irrelevance to the issue of doors and robbery prevention. Since the correct answer is B, let's first analyze C. Choice C states that the double doors can be locked remotely. That seems to strengthen the assumption that the double doors are for robbery prevention. That choice feels very relevant to the argument but it's relevant in the wrong direction. We are trying to weaken the argument so we have to attack the assumption that doors are for robbery prevention, not strengthen it.

That only leaves us with choice B. Again, I will admit this requires a bit of a mental stretch for some, but can you think of the impact that climate has on door selection or use? Sure, when it's warm I sometimes leave my door open, but when it's cold or stormy I will absolutely close my door. This choice does provide information to suggest that the double doors may not have been installed for robbery prevention and instead as a protection against climate.

Don't be too quick to call some answer choices like this one out of scope. These questions can introduce new information not previously stated in the argument. The question is whether that new information attacks an assumption and therefore weakens the argument.

KW

I am not sure of the reasoning. It seems to me that maybe we are just trying to prove the answer choice correct.

La Rinconada --> only a single set of locking doors

Inverness ---> two sets of locking doors, operated by a mechanism that allows only one set of doors to be open at a time
So, one set of doors is always opened at any time.
i.e. at a time for both towns, single set of doors is open.

Then in that case, how double doors are helping Inverness in harsh winters?
I am not satisfied with choice B.

Now, Choice C states that the double doors can be locked remotely. This statement can go in either direction. It can help to lock the door remotely to prevent theft or it can be locked remotely to keep inside warm (Whenever people enter and keep the door open, then it can be locked remotely to prevent chilly air from entering the bank). So, I am not very sure about choice C, but I will mark it given the choice.

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo AndrewN mikemcgarry
Intern
Joined: 12 Feb 2023
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Re: Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
If there are more police officemen, maybe the reason they would not rob is due to that and not the door being locked differently?
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2024
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 17 [0]
Given Kudos: 110
Re: Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
Going with C as it is an alternative reason for the double doors.
Intern
Joined: 27 Feb 2024
Posts: 7
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Re: Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
KyleWiddison wrote:
voodoochild wrote:
Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking doors at its entrance. In the town of Inverness, on the other hand, the entrances to nearly all banks are equipped with two sets of locking doors, operated by a mechanism that allows only one set of doors to be open at a time. It is clear, then, that banks in Inverness experience more robbery attempts than do those in La Rinconada, and have thus adopted the extra doors as a security measure.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?

a) Last year the number of bank robberies in La Rinconada was almost one-half greater than the corresponding figure for the previous year.
b) Inverness is known for its harsh winters, while the climate of La Rinconada is quite temperate year-round.
c) The mechanism of the double doors used by banks in Inverness allows bank security personnel to lock the doors remotely.
d) Bank robbery attempts are typically unsuccessful, and, even when the robbers do manage to escape with stolen money, the sum is usually quite small.
e) Inverness has almost twice as many police officers per capita as does La Rinconada.

Why is A) not a weakener? If the # of bank robberies in La Rin is > that in Inverness, the security is obviously out of question.

I'm responding to a PM on this one. I will start by saying the correct answer will be more logical to people who live in climates where double doors are used to maintain inside temperatures, but you can get to the answer by working through your CR process.

Assumptions fill in the logical gaps between premises and conclusions. If you want to weaken an argument you need to attack an assumption. In this question the premises state that Inverness has double doors and La Rinconada has single doors. The conclusion states that the double doors were for robbery prevention against Inverness' higher robbery rate. How do we get from double doors to robbery? We are assuming that the double doors are a method for preventing robbery (this is the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion).

Answer choices A, D, and E can quickly be eliminated for irrelevance to the issue of doors and robbery prevention. Since the correct answer is B, let's first analyze C. Choice C states that the double doors can be locked remotely. That seems to strengthen the assumption that the double doors are for robbery prevention. That choice feels very relevant to the argument but it's relevant in the wrong direction. We are trying to weaken the argument so we have to attack the assumption that doors are for robbery prevention, not strengthen it.

That only leaves us with choice B. Again, I will admit this requires a bit of a mental stretch for some, but can you think of the impact that climate has on door selection or use? Sure, when it's warm I sometimes leave my door open, but when it's cold or stormy I will absolutely close my door. This choice does provide information to suggest that the double doors may not have been installed for robbery prevention and instead as a protection against climate.

Don't be too quick to call some answer choices like this one out of scope. These questions can introduce new information not previously stated in the argument. The question is whether that new information attacks an assumption and therefore weakens the argument.

KW

­Hi, I marked B first. But then considered C, my though behind it was that Inverness is so easygoing that the security personnel don't even have to be present at the bank and take a casual stroll or something and just lock it remotely whenever the bank's day is supposed to end. I understand I stretched it a little but I believe its more plausible than the one to maintain the bank's heat insulation be allowing only one door to open.
Re: Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking [#permalink]
1   2   3
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6929 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts