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

The roof of 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.

Conclusion: This collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.

We need to strengthen the conclusion. So we need something that says that yes, because standards were not met (nails were smaller) that is why the roof collapsed.

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.

The only other buildings that collapsed were those that did not meet our current standards either. So the buildings that met current standards exactly did not collapse. This does strengthen the connect between meeting standards exactly and not collapsing.

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.

If the weight of the snow was more than what was allowed for in the codes, it seems that the nails may not have been the problem or only problem. Whether we can blame the nails then, we cannot say. Hence it certainly doesn't strengthen our argument. In fact, it makes us question it. Perhaps using smaller nails was actually irrelevant and had the weight of the snow been within limits, the roof would not have fallen. We cannot be sure but we are sure of one thing - this option does not strengthen that the nails were the culprit.

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.

We are talking about how the building did not adhere to what it was required to adhere to. Whether what it was required to adhere to was sufficient or not is not the question.

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

Irrelevant. The strength of the columns in either case (stronger than codes or no stronger than codes) is irrelevant. The roof nails are the ones that did not meet the code and the roof is the one that collapsed. The columns were as per code and anyway did not collapse. So the argument had nothing to do with the strength of the columns. It is all about the roof only and whether the nails used in the roof were responsible for its collapse or not.
EatMyDosa

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 what was in the building.

Answer (A)
_________________

Hi GMATNinja, VeritasKarishma, MartyTargetTestPrep, ChiranjeevSingh
I would like to ask why C is incorrect...I think if the code does not apply to the equipment-storage building then comparing the nails and the requirements in the code will be meaningless. Is it because C doesn't indicate whether the standards for office-building will be higher or lower?

The conclusion we have to support is the following:

Clearly, this collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.

OK, now let's consider (C).

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.

Notice that all (C) really says is that certain aspect of the law did not apply to the building.

Does the fact that certain aspects of the law did not apply mean that a departure from safety standards - using relatively small nails - is what resulted in the collapse?

No. The fact that certain aspects of the law did not apply does not affect this argument. After all, regardless of the fact that certain aspects of the law did not apply, the use of relatively small nails was a departure from codes that DID apply and may or may not have led to the collapse.

So, (C) has no effect on the argument.
_________________

(C) indicates that equipment-storage buildings (only machines stored) have fewer codes than office-buildings (presence of humans).
Does this strengthen that "even a single, apparently insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences."? No.
(C) is irrelevant. We need to strengthen that if you do not adhere to the codes very strictly, there can be serious consequences. (C) says that codes for equipment buildings are more lenient than codes for office buildings. This doesn't help our conclusion at all. We need to worry about what happens when we don't adhere to the codes that actually apply. Whether sufficient codes apply to each situation is out of scope.

IreneGao
_________________

Question type: Weaken the argument

This argument concludes that X caused Y and we have to show that X did not necessarily cause Y. We can do this by showing that Z caused Y.

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. This further strengthens the conclusion that not following safety standards has caused the collapse.

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. This option implies that even if the nails were of the right size, i.e., every safety standard was followed, the roof would still have collapsed since the weight of the snow was greater than the predicted weight. This option shows that Z caused Y.

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 option compares an equipment-storage building to an office building. This does not refer to the causal argument.

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. This may be true but we are looking for an alternate reason for the collapse of the roof.

E. Because the equipment-storage building was used for storing snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed. All this option tells us is that no one was hurt.

- Nitha Jay
_________________

Argument says that codes were complied well and so only smaller size nails were responsible. so we need something that will absolve nails of this charge

A - out of scope

B implicates wrong prediction of max snow accumulation on the roof and thus in a way puts the blame away from nails. For instance if the avg snowfall for last 25 years has been X amount and it snowed 2x amount this year , how can u blame the nails.

C is of less consequence here as whatever the intended purpose of the building it did comply with all codes

D Out of scope
E out of scope

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.
_________________