Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Dec 1310:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
76% (01:55) correct
24%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 9905
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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
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
04 Jul 2018, 14:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Jabato
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:Thank you!
- 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!
28 May 2016, 06:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
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
