It is currently 27 Jun 2017, 17:49

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: 196
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
15
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (02:35) correct 35% (01:27) wrong based on 1258 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

cool


Last edited by nguyendinhtuong on 19 Jun 2017, 00:14, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 610
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 129
Reviews Badge
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2007, 09:20
Clear A
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1445
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, 11:48
Clear A..
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 903
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

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

-Brajesh
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 468
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..

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1445
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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 468
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..

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 468
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..

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1445
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.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 856
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 196
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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2014
Posts: 30
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?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2014
Posts: 30
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?
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10149
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.
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 Jun 2015
Posts: 11
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2015, 18:18
1
This post received
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Last edited by nguyendinhtuong on 19 Jun 2017, 00:13, edited 1 time in total.
Merged post. Please search before posting
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2014
Posts: 15
GMAT 1: 610 Q49 V25
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2015, 20:09
1
This post received
KUDOS
IMO (b).
If the maximum load considered for calculating the safety codes is exceeded then the safety codes themselves become questionable.
(c) doesn't provide any new information.
All other options are well irrelevant.
_________________

If anything above makes any sense to you, please let me and others know by hitting the "+1 KUDOS" button

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 175
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2015, 20:17
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
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.

Explanation
Type: Weaken
BID: Nail size deviation -> Roof collapse
Missing Information: No other factors
Goal: Find the option that exposes that the collapse was the result of something other than the deviation from code.

Ⓐ Other, older buildings collapsing is Out of Focus, and if anything seems to reinforce the unusual nature of this particular collapse in the prompt.

Ⓑ Yes! Here we go. This option takes the circumstances beyond the code. In other words, with option B, the collapse may have had nothing to do with the nail size discrepancy

Ⓒ 180 and irrelevant. This option actually expresses that some codes that usually apply to OFFICE buildings wouldn’t apply to this building.

Ⓓ Who’s at fault for the failure of compliance is TOTALLY irrelevant. The argument is claiming that it was the very failure to comply with the nail size aspect of the code that caused the collapse. Who’s at fault is entirely Out of Focus from that discussion.

Ⓔ Easy Out #3 This is definitely the worst option here. It says that the building happened to be empty because it stores snow removal equipment. Neither of those details have any relevance at all to our discussion as to what caused the collapse. Gone.

_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."
Image

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 30
Location: United Kingdom
WE: Corporate Finance (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2015, 20:18
B?
This question is about causal effect .
we should find another way to get the same effect to weaken the argument

A - Strengthen the argument
B - correct - it indicates that the amount of snow on the roof exceeded the permissible limit of endurance.
C - Comparison in safety standard is not relevant here
D - Not relevant - a simple fact is given
E - Not relevant - whether the building was empty of filled
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Sep 2015
Posts: 142
Location: United States
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jan 2016, 07:57
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Please provide explanation why other options are incorrect. Thanks in advance.

Last edited by nguyendinhtuong on 19 Jun 2017, 00:12, edited 1 time in total.
Merged post. Please search before posting
Re: Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage   [#permalink] 28 Jan 2016, 07:57

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 34 posts ] 

    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 The Economic Council’s declaration that budget cuts Skywalker18 11 26 Jun 2017, 06:54
1 Editorial: It is clear that if this country’s nahid78 1 16 Apr 2017, 22:59
Editorial: The roof of Northtown's municipal equipment-storage buildin rachitshah 0 28 Jan 2016, 11:33
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic Editorial in Golbindian Newspaper souvik101990 3 01 Jul 2015, 06:45
The roof of Northtown's municipal equipment-storage LithiumIon 0 03 May 2017, 14:17
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 and phpBB SEO

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®.