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

 It is currently 19 Aug 2018, 19:55

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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 193
Location: Bangkok
Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

Updated on: 25 Oct 2017, 18:53
4
32
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

67% (01:31) correct 33% (01:28) wrong based on 2890 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Same passage with different stem question: LINK

_________________

cool

Originally posted by jet1445 on 15 Jul 2007, 08:26.
Last edited by broall on 25 Oct 2017, 18:53, edited 2 times in total.
Reformatted question
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 80
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
1
2
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 !

Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 58
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.
Board of Directors
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3690
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 May 2017, 11:22
1
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.
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.

Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free

CEO
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Posts: 2707
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Sep 2017, 09:04
2
Top Contributor
jet1445 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 snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

PREMISE: roof collapsed under heavy snowfall.
PREMISE: roof met codes EXCEPT for nail size
CONCLUSION: a small departure from standards can have severe consequences.

We're looking for a premise that supports the conclusion that a small departure from standards can have severe consequences.
As we examine each answer choice, we must be sure to remind ourselves of the argument's conclusion....

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.
I like it. It certainly strengthens the conclusion that a small departure from standards can have severe consequences.

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.
This weakens the conclusion, since the weight of the snow went beyond safety codes. In other words, the collapse was NOT due to a small departure from standards can have severe consequences.

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.
This does not affect the conclusion that a small departure from standards can have severe consequences.

D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.
This does not affect the conclusion that a small departure from standards can have severe consequences.

E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.
This does not affect the conclusion that a small departure from standards can have severe consequences.

Cheers,
Brent
_________________

Brent Hanneson – Founder of gmatprepnow.com

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 287
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Sep 2017, 09:17
Thanks GMATPrepNow and Squib17 for the explanations!

_________________
Manager
Status: Target 760
Joined: 20 Aug 2014
Posts: 60
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Economics
GMAT 1: 670 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.25
WE: Corporate Finance (Investment Banking)
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 Oct 2017, 06:53
jet1445 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 snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

This is a strengthen question. Option A is a clear winner as the only other buildings that collapsed were the ones that weren't constructed as per blue print.

B is weakening the argument.

C: I don't care whether it was for human occupation or not. It collapsed dude! Period!

D: Argument doesn't mention it. We are talking about nails, aren't we?

E: Again, don't care what was kept in there.

Intern
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Posts: 1
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jun 2018, 10:43
I do not really understand why A) supports the argument, I can't see the connection.

Thank you!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1909
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Jul 2018, 14:49
3
Jabato wrote:
I do not really understand why A) supports the argument, I can't see the connection.

Thank you!

The conclusion of the argument is that a single, apparently insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences. Here's how the editorial author reaches this conclusion:

• Northtown Council recently constructed an equipment-storage building that met safety codes in every particular...
• ...except that nails used for attaching roof supports were smaller than codes specify.
• After this one, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards, the equipment-storage building's roof collapsed under the weight of heavy snowfall.
• Therefore, the author concludes that even a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards (like using nails that are too small) can have severe consequences (like the roof of a building collapsing).

We're looking for an answer choice that backs up the case of this equipment-storage building. A good choice will provide more evidence that departing from safety standards leads to severe consequences. A good choice could also rule out alternate explanations for the collapse of this equipment-storage building's roof.

Quote:
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.

Choice (A) tells us that other roofs collapsed during last week's snowfall. Choice (A) also tells us that the standards followed to construct the other roofs were less exacting (i.e., less strict or demanding) than the standards set by today's safety codes. Consequently, (A) confirms that other buildings constructed with a lack of care for safety standards ended up suffering severe consequences.

Even better, this choice tells us that these were the only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of last week's snowfall. That reduces the likelihood that there are alternate explanations for this damage:

• If (A) were not true, then perhaps the roofs of several buildings that met local building-safety codes in EVERY way also collapsed.
• That evidence would suggest that the roof of the equipment-storage building may have collapsed even if the nails were up to code.
• In that case, the problem would not have been simply a "single departure from safety standards" (the nails).
• Instead, the problem would have been that the safety standards were not strict enough to protect against such a heavy snowfall--even roofs of buildings that met the standards collapsed.

But (A) tells us that this was not the case and thus strengthens the argument.

I hope this helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Study Buddy Forum Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1169
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Jul 2018, 17:19

Can you please validate my PoE:

Quote:
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 (ie buildings constructed) in the (earlier) safety codes.

I have added my interpretation and underlined words which according to me is a very strong language used by author to prove his point that
small deviations from safety standards can result in severe consequences ie building collapse.

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

Buildings' columns (same level as) safety codes ??
Nope this is not what I need to strengthen the conclusion. I need to assign a higher priority level to safety codes
to strengthen this argument.
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 324
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Jul 2018, 04:59
1

Can you please validate my PoE:

Quote:
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 (ie buildings constructed) in the (earlier) safety codes.

I have added my interpretation and underlined words which according to me is a very strong language used by author to prove his point that
small deviations from safety standards can result in severe consequences ie building collapse.

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

Buildings' columns (same level as) safety codes ??
Nope this is not what I need to strengthen the conclusion. I need to assign a higher priority level to safety codes
to strengthen this argument.

Your reasoning is close with (D). The reason (D) doesn't work is because it says no stronger, but does mean that they are weaker? Nope. Therefore, we have no idea whether this violates the conclusion that a single diversion from safety standards can cause issues. They could be just as strong, and this would then defeat our conclusion.

Does this help?
_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 289
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jul 2018, 00:05
Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn,
sayantanc2
VeritasPrepKarishma

anyone can elaborate A and D, although many discusses here, i am still confused.
as per A, Does A state that older is one explanation of the collapse. those buildings were older, according to a less exactly standard. So IMO, A weakens the conclusion.
As per D, I an mot absolutely understand "no stronger than", Does it mean weaker? or as strong as ...?
if the columns are as strong as the building-safety codes required for such a building, then i think D strengthen
if the columns are weaker than the building-safety codes required for such a building, then i think D weaken.

hope this post won't be sunk into the sea of posts.

Have a nice day
>_~
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 324
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jul 2018, 04:49
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn,
sayantanc2
VeritasPrepKarishma

anyone can elaborate A and D, although many discusses here, i am still confused.
as per A, Does A state that older is one explanation of the collapse. those buildings were older, according to a less exactly standard. So IMO, A weakens the conclusion.
As per D, I an mot absolutely understand "no stronger than", Does it mean weaker? or as strong as ...?
if the columns are as strong as the building-safety codes required for such a building, then i think D strengthen
if the columns are weaker than the building-safety codes required for such a building, then i think D weaken.

hope this post won't be sunk into the sea of posts.

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi zoezhuyan,

Your point about (D) is the reason we cannot use it. Because we can say it both strengthens and weakens the argument given its parameters, we cannot say it helps our case. Therefore, it cannot be the answer. (D) says it could be as strong, but it could be weaker. If it is as strong, this doesn't help us. We NEED it to be weaker, otherwise we cannot strengthen our conclusion.
To diagram: No stronger than means <= strength of the original object

Does this help?
_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 289
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jul 2018, 05:52
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn,
sayantanc2
VeritasPrepKarishma

anyone can elaborate A and D, although many discusses here, i am still confused.
as per A, Does A state that older is one explanation of the collapse. those buildings were older, according to a less exactly standard. So IMO, A weakens the conclusion.
As per D, I an mot absolutely understand "no stronger than", Does it mean weaker? or as strong as ...?
if the columns are as strong as the building-safety codes required for such a building, then i think D strengthen
if the columns are weaker than the building-safety codes required for such a building, then i think D weaken.

hope this post won't be sunk into the sea of posts.

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi zoezhuyan,

Your point about (D) is the reason we cannot use it. Because we can say it both strengthens and weakens the argument given its parameters, we cannot say it helps our case. Therefore, it cannot be the answer. (D) says it could be as strong, but it could be weaker. If it is as strong, this doesn't help us. We NEED it to be weaker, otherwise we cannot strengthen our conclusion.
To diagram: No stronger than means <= strength of the original object

Does this help?

Because we can say it both strengthens and weakens the argument given its parameters, we cannot say it helps our case. would you please elaborate further, what is "helps out case" ? it does not mean strengthen?
We NEED it to be weaker, otherwise we cannot strengthen our conclusion.
we need it to be weaker? do not we strengthen? why we need it to be weaker?

No stronger than means two senarios , "as strong as" and "weaker" , right?

have a lovely day
>_~
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 324
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jul 2018, 06:10
zoezhuyan wrote:
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn,
sayantanc2
VeritasPrepKarishma

anyone can elaborate A and D, although many discusses here, i am still confused.
as per A, Does A state that older is one explanation of the collapse. those buildings were older, according to a less exactly standard. So IMO, A weakens the conclusion.
As per D, I an mot absolutely understand "no stronger than", Does it mean weaker? or as strong as ...?
if the columns are as strong as the building-safety codes required for such a building, then i think D strengthen
if the columns are weaker than the building-safety codes required for such a building, then i think D weaken.

hope this post won't be sunk into the sea of posts.

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi zoezhuyan,

Your point about (D) is the reason we cannot use it. Because we can say it both strengthens and weakens the argument given its parameters, we cannot say it helps our case. Therefore, it cannot be the answer. (D) says it could be as strong, but it could be weaker. If it is as strong, this doesn't help us. We NEED it to be weaker, otherwise we cannot strengthen our conclusion.
To diagram: No stronger than means <= strength of the original object

Does this help?

Because we can say it both strengthens and weakens the argument given its parameters, we cannot say it helps our case. would you please elaborate further, what is "helps out case" ? it does not mean strengthen?
We NEED it to be weaker, otherwise we cannot strengthen our conclusion.
we need it to be weaker? do not we strengthen? why we need it to be weaker?

No stronger than means two senarios , "as strong as" and "weaker" , right?

have a lovely day
>_~

No stronger means "as strong as" OR "weaker", so you are close on that. The argument says that we want to strengthen the conclusion that a weakness can cause destruction. Because we do not know if the option will fall on "as strong as" or "weaker", we cannot say for sure if this helps our conclusion.

Is this clearer?
_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 289
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Jul 2018, 04:07
No stronger means "as strong as" OR "weaker", so you are close on that. The argument says that we want to strengthen the conclusion that a weakness can cause destruction. Because we do not know if the option will fall on "as strong as" or "weaker", we cannot say for sure if this helps our conclusion.

Is this clearer?

Thanks nightblade354, Now i got it.

additional, do you think A states the collapsed building are older building, implying that the age is another explanaiton?
I am not suspect the office answer, i absoutely understand OA is awlays correct. I donlt understand what's wrong with my interpretation.

would you please point out ?

Have a nice day
>_~
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 324
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Jul 2018, 06:07
1
zoezhuyan wrote:
No stronger means "as strong as" OR "weaker", so you are close on that. The argument says that we want to strengthen the conclusion that a weakness can cause destruction. Because we do not know if the option will fall on "as strong as" or "weaker", we cannot say for sure if this helps our conclusion.

Is this clearer?

Thanks nightblade354, Now i got it.

additional, do you think A states the collapsed building are older building, implying that the age is another explanaiton?
I am not suspect the office answer, i absoutely understand OA is awlays correct. I donlt understand what's wrong with my interpretation.

would you please point out ?

Have a nice day
>_~

I think your issue is that you're not focusing on the conclusion. Here is the conclusion: "Clearly, this collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences". Given this, does age do anything to our argument? Nope. It weakens our argument, which isn't the goal. Our goal is to strengthen.

Does this help?

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1909
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Jul 2018, 11:34

Can you please validate my PoE:

Quote:
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 (ie buildings constructed) in the (earlier) safety codes.

I have added my interpretation and underlined words which according to me is a very strong language used by author to prove his point that
small deviations from safety standards can result in severe consequences ie building collapse.

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

Buildings' columns (same level as) safety codes ??
Nope this is not what I need to strengthen the conclusion. I need to assign a higher priority level to safety codes
to strengthen this argument.

Your reasoning is close with (D). The reason (D) doesn't work is because it says no stronger, but does mean that they are weaker? Nope. Therefore, we have no idea whether this violates the conclusion that a single diversion from safety standards can cause issues. They could be just as strong, and this would then defeat our conclusion.

Does this help?

Very nice work as usual, nightblade354!

Quote:
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.

Replacing those, we get: "The only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than the standards in the safety codes." So the older buildings were built to less exacting standards.

As described in this previous post, if (A) were not true, we'd have reason to doubt the author's argument.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage &nbs [#permalink] 10 Jul 2018, 11:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Events & Promotions

 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®.