GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Aug 2018, 16:43

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

Editorial on snowfall

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1328
Editorial on snowfall  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2009, 14:50
Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage building collapsed under
the weight of last week’s heavy snowfall. The building was constructed recently and met
local building-safety codes in every particular, except that the nails used for attaching
roof supports to the building’s columns were of a smaller size than the codes specify for
this purpose. Clearly, this collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently
insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the editorial’s argument?
A. The only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall
were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those
in the safety codes.
B. Because of the particular location of the equipment-storage building, the weight
of snow on its roof was greater than the maximum weight allowed for in the
safety codes.
C. Because the equipment-storage building was not intended for human occupation,
some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office building did not
apply to it.
D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes
required for such a building.
E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snowremoval
equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof
collapsed.

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 486
Re: Editorial on snowfall  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2009, 19:11
IMO E
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 587
Re: Editorial on snowfall  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2009, 06:06
IMO D.
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 249
Re: Editorial on snowfall  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2009, 08:06
icandy wrote:
Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage building collapsed under
the weight of last week’s heavy snowfall. The building was constructed recently and met
local building-safety codes in every particular, except that the nails used for attaching
roof supports to the building’s columns were of a smaller size than the codes specify for
this purpose. Clearly, this collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently
insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the editorial’s argument?
A. The only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall
were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those
in the safety codes.
B. Because of the particular location of the equipment-storage building, the weight
of snow on its roof was greater than the maximum weight allowed for in the
safety codes.
C. Because the equipment-storage building was not intended for human occupation,
some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office building did not
apply to it.
D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes
required for such a building.
E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snowremoval
equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof
collapsed.


D should be the right answer. If the column is made according to the specification, then it's the nail that is the cause of trouble.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1328
Re: Editorial on snowfall  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2009, 17:06
OA given is A

No OE

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
Re: Editorial on snowfall &nbs [#permalink] 19 Feb 2009, 17:06
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Editorial on snowfall

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderator: chetan2u

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.