It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 08:33

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 94 [1], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2007, 08:26
1
This post received
KUDOS
19
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (01:30) correct 32% (01:25) wrong based on 1888 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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

cool


Last edited by broall on 25 Oct 2017, 18:53, edited 2 times in total.
Reformatted question

Kudos [?]: 94 [1], given: 0

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 609

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

Location: New Haven, CT
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2007, 09:10
A, because you want to show a comparison with the building collapse and other building collapses to make the argument hold true.

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 129

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

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2007, 09:20
Clear A

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

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 901

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2007, 11:54
Straight A.

-Brajesh

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 467

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2007, 12:05
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.


I think D.

in A, there are endless possibilities of violation of standards. Also, A talks about older buildings. Hence normal wear and tear could also be involved.

D tells us that the columns adhered to the safety code. So, it's the nail that caused the damage.
_________________

for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2007, 12:10
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
shoonya wrote:
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.


I think D.

in A, there are endless possibilities of violation of standards. Also, A talks about older buildings. Hence normal wear and tear could also be involved.

D tells us that the columns adhered to the safety code. So, it's the nail that caused the damage.


Welll - it will be D if you want to prove (which incidentally has already been shown to be true in the passage) that the building collapsed due to the nail being non-standard.

The point the author is trying to make is that even miniscule violations from prescribed standards can lead to damages as indicated. A buttresses this fact by illustrating more such cases where lack of compliance has caused buildings to be damaged.

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 467

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2007, 12:17
dwivedys wrote:
shoonya wrote:
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?

wA. 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.


I think D.

in A, there are endless possibilities of violation of standards. Also, A talks about older buildings. Hence normal wear and tear could also be involved.

D tells us that the columns adhered to the safety code. So, it's the nail that caused the damage.


Welll - it will be D if you want to prove (which incidentally has already been shown to be true in the passage) that the building collapsed due to the nail being non-standard.

The point the author is trying to make is that even miniscule violations from prescribed standards can lead to damages as indicated. A buttresses this fact by illustrating more such cases where lack of compliance has caused buildings to be damaged.


I see your point. But A talks about older buildings. How would you know that the problems with those buildings were insignificant? Author's editorial doesn't talk about any other problem with the building. D gives enough reasons to believe that it's the nails and nothing else that caused the damage. It supports the argument.
_________________

for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 467

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2007, 12:17
Jet, what's the OA?
_________________

for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2007, 12:28
Quote:
How would you know that the problems with those buildings were insignificant?


It's not the degree of problems that's important - what's notable is the fact that all the buildings which violated code (regardless of the degree of non-compliance) were damaged.

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 851

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2007, 10:59
Hi shoonya,read D carefully.
D says: The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.

no stronger=as strong as or less stronger than

In that case,the argument can be weakened as well.
So,D is incorrect.
A is the answer.

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 20 Jul 2007, 04:45
OA is A
_________________

cool

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2014
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 22

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

Show Tags

New post 10 Jun 2014, 03:08
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.

Option B gives one example saying how another minor isssue can prove big later. Why not B
option A doesnt tell the significance. See, the conclusion of this arg. is that MINOR things ignored come out to be big.
@dwivedys :Can you tell what pre thinking you did for this?

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 22

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2014
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 22

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

Show Tags

New post 10 Jun 2014, 03:08
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.

Option B gives one example saying how another minor isssue can prove big later. Why not B
option A doesnt tell the significance. See, the conclusion of this arg. is that MINOR things ignored come out to be big.
@dwivedys :Can you tell what pre thinking you did for this?

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 22

1 KUDOS received
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10127

Kudos [?]: 270 [1], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Jun 2015, 02:48
1
This post received
KUDOS
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 [?]: 270 [1], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 27 Jan 2016
Posts: 3

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

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

Show Tags

New post 20 Feb 2016, 22:15
Answer D) states that:

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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Posts: 11

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

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

Show Tags

New post 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.



Answer is A.
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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 231

GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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: 231

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 82

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 323

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

Show Tags

New post 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 [?]: 118 [0], given: 323

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10127

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 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 [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 8

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

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

Show Tags

New post 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. :roll:

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

Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage   [#permalink] 23 Dec 2016, 23:24

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 29 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.