It is currently 21 Sep 2017, 09:09

Happening Now:

Live Chat with Amy Mitson, Sr. Associate Director of Admissions at Tuck Dartmouth

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1088

Kudos [?]: 1123 [0], given: 29

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Jan 2016, 11:33
This is a causal argument. The author is assuming that because the building was otherwise built to code, the one departure must be responsible for the problem. Maybe there was some other cause of the collapse.

(B) provides this other cause. The snow was too much even for a built-to-code structure to withstand.

(A) actually strengthens the argument by suggesting that no building that conformed to code collapsed.
(C) hints that perhaps the building wasn't up to the best standard, but this is irrelevant. The conclusion is about the effect of a departure from the code, and the nails were the only departure. In any case, it seems fair to assume that even buildings not intended for human occupation are not supposed to collapse!
(D) We don't care who is responsible. We are just investigating the physical cause of the collapse.
(E) I'm glad no one was injured, but what does this have to do with anything?
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1123 [0], given: 29

Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Posts: 12

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 61

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Feb 2016, 15:21
Hi there,

I don't understand why answer choice B is wrong and why this was qualified as a weaken questions? I think it should be a strengthen question. Can someone please clarify?

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 61

Intern
Joined: 27 Jan 2016
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Feb 2016, 22:15

The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.

Hence, this supports the conclusion the most, because even the smallest error can result in a building that is now not meeting safety standards and will therefore collapse.

Answer A) talks about old buildings, which could have a multitude of reasons why they dont meet the most recent safety standards.

Out of these two answers, D) more strongly supports the argument that even small departures from safety standards can have disastrous consequences.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 5

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Feb 2016, 23:43
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
rlitagmatstudy wrote:
Hi there,

I don't understand why answer choice B is wrong and why this was qualified as a weaken questions? I think it should be a strengthen question. Can someone please clarify?

I see your point, OG 2016 section 8.4 Practice Questions, 4th question corresponds to this question Q21. This question suppose to be a weaken question according to OG-2016, the official answer when it is weaken type is "B",

But as per Q21 the corresponding answer choice when it is "STRENGTHEN" type is "A".

Both strengthen and weaken can be identified in a single question and both are correct. We got one bonus question .

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 5

Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 5

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Mar 2016, 09:12
jet1445 wrote:
Q21:
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 snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

It is already mentioned in the Argument that building has met its safety standard except for nails. So option B and D are crossed ( no use in considering point for other deatils as building has met its safety standards except for nails ) . C and E are Out of scope. Going straight with option A as it gives another example and supports the Conclusion.

Please let me know know if I am correct with my reasoning.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 5

Intern
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 230

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Apr 2016, 01:35
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
It's either between A or D.

See the Argument and see the objective. But Option D says that it happened because of weak columns. This means the collapse is not due to nails but due to columns. So this provides an alternate idea to explain why building roof collpased.

Clearly weakens the argument, not strengthen it.

See D is giving alternate explanation for the same building we are concerned about. It would have been correct if the explanations of the weak columns were pointed to some other building. This is being shown in option A.

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 230

Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 84

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 323

Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GMAT 2: 750 Q50 V41
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 May 2016, 06:50
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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?

Conclusion : Even insignificant departures from safety standards can have severe consequences.

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.

Correct answer because it establishes that all other collapsed buildings had lower safety standards. Thus the only case in which collapse occurs is deviation from the safety norms.

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.

Provides an alternate reason for the collapse thereby weakening the argument.

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.

Is irrelevant to the argument. The argument tries to establish that any deviation from the given safety norms can have severe consequences so it does not matter if office buildings follow more stringent provisions

D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.

The columns were no stronger does not mean they were weaker than the stipulated norms. In fact it means they were as strong as required by the safety norms. Since they were as per the safety norms they probably did not play a role in the collapse. If they did play a role in the collapse it would mean that the designed safety standards were inadequate , which is an alternative reason for the collapse. In that case the argument would be weakened !

E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

Irrelevant
_________________

Appreciate any KUDOS given !

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 323

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10170

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Jul 2016, 23:51
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.

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 05 May 2016
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 559

Location: United States
WE: Web Development (Computer Software)
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Sep 2016, 08:45
LithiumIon wrote:
2016 GMAT Official Guide, Question 4

4. Editorial: The roof of Northtown's municipal 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 seriously weakens the editorial's argument?

(A) The only other buildings to suffer roof collapses from the weight of the snowfall were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those in the codes.
(B) The amount of snow that accumulated on the roof of the equipment-storage building was greater than the predicted maximum that was used in drawing up 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 municipality of Northtown itself has the responsibility for ensuring that buildings constructed within its boundaries meet the provisions of the building-safety codes.
(E) Because the equipment-storage building was used for storing snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

(A) actually strengthens the conclusion. Because older buildings were constructed according to less exacting standards than those in the codes, those buildings suffered. If it were a strengthen question, (A) would've been the correct answer.

(B) offers a clear reason that the consequence was a result of something else and not the departure from safety standards. (B) offers "new information" that undermines the conclusion and hence weakens the argument.

C, D, and E fall in the irrelevant / out of scope category.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 559

Intern
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 8

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 71

Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Dec 2016, 23:24
The conclusion is that any deviations from the Safety Standards lead to consequences. The Conclusion is not that the smaller nails have alone led to the problem.
In light of this, Option A states that old buildings that did not comply with latests standards collapsed. The question stem does not state that the old building collapsed only due to substandard construction or due to oldage.

Option D states that the beams of the building fall short of the standards.
This means, that D gives one more instance of sub-standard construction. This should actually strengthen the above stated conclusion. So i think it is option D.
Tell me where i am wrong.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 71

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 479

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 18

Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Jan 2017, 13:35
A is the Clrear answer for the baove question as it supports the argument given that daviation from the safty standards may lead to the collapse of the roof,and since the buildings in which the roofs collapsed were build before the safty standards were implemented.

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 18

Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 122

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 205

GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.99
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 May 2017, 14:17
I initially thought that we could weaken the claim that "even a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards can have severe consequences" by stating that departure from safety standards were actually significant (weak support for the rooftop does not seem insignificant to me).
When I saw that answer choices do not come even close to approaching argument this way, I correctly picked B. However I would like to know whether there is anything wrong with my initial reasoning?

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 205

Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 63

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 40

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 May 2017, 10:46
jet1445 wrote:
Q21:
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 snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

Hi

I think "E" should be the answer not "A".

The question stress more on the insignificant safety standards. Choice "A" talks about the older building that did not follow all the safety standards. First they are the old buildings, and second they might have ignored the significant safety standards as well. They were bound to collapse under these circumstances.

Answer choice "E" states that the building was empty and all safety standards were met except the most insignificant one. This clearly means that even the most insignificant safety standards can not be ignored.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 40

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Aiming MBA
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 2358

Kudos [?]: 710 [0], given: 62

Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 May 2017, 11:22
ravi11 wrote:
Hi

I think "E" should be the answer not "A".

The question stress more on the insignificant safety standards. Choice "A" talks about the older building that did not follow all the safety standards. First they are the old buildings, and second they might have ignored the significant safety standards as well. They were bound to collapse under these circumstances.

Answer choice "E" states that the building was empty and all safety standards were met except the most insignificant one. This clearly means that even the most insignificant safety standards can not be ignored.

The argument concluded that the collapse can lead to severe consequences. It is based on the assumption that the building collapsed because of that small nail difference.

We need to strengthen this and say yes this was the only building that had not followed some standards and hence, collapsed.

Option A is clearly saying only this building out of those based on new standards collapsed and those old building that did not follow the standards collapsed. Hence, correct.

Option E is saying something about the emptiness of the building. We are nowhere given whether it does matter to have someone or something inside the building during its collapse. So, if a building has to collapse, it will collapse no matter someone/something is there. Also, this point is nowhere relating the collapse to the standards. Hence, 100% incorrect. I tried decoding your point about E, but unfortunately it is highly difficult for me to decode what you are saying about option E.

Let me know in case of any confusion.
_________________

V21 ---> V40!

Kudos [?]: 710 [0], given: 62

Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2016
Posts: 39

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Jul 2017, 22:47
DmitryFarber wrote:
This is a causal argument. The author is assuming that because the building was otherwise built to code, the one departure must be responsible for the problem. Maybe there was some other cause of the collapse.

(B) provides this other cause. The snow was too much even for a built-to-code structure to withstand.

(A) actually strengthens the argument by suggesting that no building that conformed to code collapsed.
(C) hints that perhaps the building wasn't up to the best standard, but this is irrelevant. The conclusion is about the effect of a departure from the code, and the nails were the only departure. In any case, it seems fair to assume that even buildings not intended for human occupation are not supposed to collapse!
(D) We don't care who is responsible. We are just investigating the physical cause of the collapse.
(E) I'm glad no one was injured, but what does this have to do with anything?

I feel the statement E says that though the roof was empty it fall down. Which means the construction was so weak that even empty roof collapsed . Otherwise , some people may say that because of heavy load on roof and not because of faulty nails the roof collapsed . So the statement E does help the conclusion , however the problem with this option is that , it do not relate the conclusion with premise .

I would be thankful if you reply to my observation .

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Aiming MBA
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 2358

Kudos [?]: 710 [0], given: 62

Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Jul 2017, 02:17
gmat4varun wrote:
I feel the statement E says that though the roof was empty it fall down. Which means the construction was so weak that even empty roof collapsed . Otherwise , some people may say that because of heavy load on roof and not because of faulty nails the roof collapsed . So the statement E does help the conclusion , however the problem with this option is that , it do not relate the conclusion with premise .

I would be thankful if you reply to my observation .

Hi gmat4varun ,

Please see if the below post helps you:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/editorial-th ... l#p1851390

If not, feel free to reach out.
_________________

V21 ---> V40!

Kudos [?]: 710 [0], given: 62

Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 11

Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.13
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Aug 2017, 07:13
Confusing but got it correct.
Took me 2 minutes and 43 seconds.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 11

Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Sep 2017, 02:10
The official guide categorizes option A as an strengthener and chooses a version of option B which reads "The amount of snow that accumulated on the roof of the equipment storage building was greater than the predicted maximum that was used in drawing up the safety codes.", as the correct option . Kindly clarify.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage   [#permalink] 10 Sep 2017, 02:10

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 38 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
37 Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear 17 21 Oct 2016, 08:19
12 Editorial : Regulations recently imposed by the government 16 17 Nov 2016, 02:33
20 Editorial: The Intercontinental Bank should reallocate the 17 28 Nov 2015, 11:08
2 Editorial: It is clear that if this country’s 1 16 Apr 2017, 22:59
2 Editorial in Golbindian Newspaper 3 01 Jul 2015, 06:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage

 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®.