Editorial: The roof of Northtown's municipal equipment-storage buildin

Question

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.

Same passage with different stem question:  LINK 
ID - CR03940

egmat · Accepted Answer

Passage analysis 
 
 Editorial: The roof of Northtown’s municipal equipment-storage building collapsed under the weight of last week’s heavy snowfall. 
 According to an editorial:
The roof of Northtown’s municipal equipment-storage building fell in as last week there was heavy snowfall. 
 The building was constructed recently and met local building-safety codes in every particular, 
 It was a newly constructed building and had been made according to the local building safety-codes. 
 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. 
 It had followed all the required building safety-codes except one.
The nails that were used for attaching the roof supports to the pillars of the building were of a smaller size than required by the safety-codes. 
 Clearly, this collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards can have severe consequences. 
 The collapse is a clear example of how even one, seemingly unimportant deviation from the safety standards can lead to disastrous results.

Conclusion

The collapse of the municipal equipment-storage building’s roof is an example of how even a single, seemingly unimportant deviation from safety norms can have disastrous outcomes.

Pre-thinking 
  Weaken Framework  
Now per our understanding of the passage, let’s first write down the weaken framework:

What new information will make us believe less in the conclusion
It was a small insignificant deviation from safety standards that caused the collapse of the storage building’s roof.
 
Given that
Last week there was heavy snowfall
It was a newly constructed building
It met all the safety code standards with one exception.
The nails used for attaching roof supports to the building’s columns were of a smaller size than the codes specify for this purpose.

Thought process

Since all the other standards set by the safety code were followed, the author clearly believes that the caving in of the roof is completely attributable to the wrong nail size which was the only standard not fulfilled.

And accordingly blames the small deviation for the disaster.
 
But it is possible that there were other reason/s that were at play and could have been responsible for the roof’s collapse in spite of all the safety norms in place.

Weakener

The roof collapsed at the time of heavy snowfall. It is quite possible that this snowfall was significantly heavier than usual and caused the collapse.

So, a statement indicating the heavy snowfall to be the cause of the collapse would weaken the case of the nail being the culprit.

Answer Choices
 
 Option A

This comparison is with buildings that were constructed according to completely different standards. This in a way supports the conclusion that the standard codes are to be held responsible for the collapse.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option B

This is in line with our pre-thinking. It shows that despite the safety codes in place, something unexpected happened that led to the collapse.
Thus, this is the correct choice.

Option C

The passage says all the safety codes that were required for the equipment storage building were followed except one. Hence, this option has no bearing on the conclusion.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option D

Whose responsibility it is to ensure the enforcement of the codes does not provide an alternate reason as to why the building collapsed if all codes were not able to be enforced (by whoever they were supposed to be enforced by).
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option E

This is irrelevant as the conclusion is not about any casualty caused by the collapse.
Hence, this is not the correct choice.

shuvabrata88 · Answer

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.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

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

Ⓓ 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.

DmitryFarber · Answer

This is a causal argument. The author is assuming that because the building was otherwise built to code, the one departure must be responsible for the problem. Maybe there was some other cause of the collapse.

(B) provides this other cause. The snow was too much even for a built-to-code structure to withstand.

(A) actually strengthens the argument by suggesting that no building that conformed to code collapsed.
(C) hints that perhaps the building wasn't up to the best standard, but this is irrelevant. The conclusion is about the effect of a departure from the code, and the nails were the only departure. In any case, it seems fair to assume that even buildings not intended for human occupation are not supposed to collapse!
(D) We don't care who is responsible. We are just investigating the physical cause of the collapse.
(E) I'm glad no one was injured, but what does this have to do with anything?

shoum27 · Answer

Hi Let me try Always in Strengthen/Weaken Question we need to think normally as we do in REAL WORLD. Let me break this argument as if this conversation took place between you and me You: Dude, the building near my house collapsed yesterday due to heavy snowfall. Me: Wasn't it newly constructed and followed all the safety standards You: Yes but the owner said that the nails used were shorter than specified Me: Seems, even such a small deviation can cause unsafe condition (my conclusion) Now what will you say if u want to weaken my conclusion You:

Bro, May be there were other factors also, which we are missing...!!!(think like Sherlock...as if u r investigating the case

) Main ISSUE: ANY Deviation from safety => Severe loss/destruction Weaken: any new factor that can be taken into account also Now see the options (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. Old buildings+poor safety standards = Completely opposite to what we need...WRONG (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. You to me: Dude, have you checked the boundary conditions on which the safety standards were maintained...Example: if the bike design is to run at a max safe speed of 100km/hr and if you are running at 125km/hr, you have already crossed the safety limit and prone to accidents... Similarly if the building is made for 100tons max snow weight and if it crossed that then even the safety standards fails to account that... So CORRECT (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 dont care about what is inside the building...IRRLEVANT (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. who is responsible ? doesnt matter the main issue...IRRLEVANT (E) Because the equipment-storage building was used for storing snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed. we dont care about what is inside the building...IRRLEVANT

MartyMurray · Answer

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.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

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

The support for the conclusion in this case is everything that precedes the conclusion:

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.

We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that, since a certain building's roof collapsed when nails used in constructing the roof were of a smaller size than codes specify, it is clear that not following codes exactly can have severe consequences.

The underlying assumption of that reasoning is that the use of nails that didn't meet the codes was the cause of the collapse.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial's argument?

This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though it's true that the roof collapsed when nails that didn't meet codes were used, the conclusion that a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards can have severe consequences may not be correct.

(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 choice supports, rather than weakens the case for, the conclusion.

After all, this choice shows that, where the presumed cause, construction that does not meet codes, was not present, the effect, roof collapses, was not present either.

So, this choice strengthens the connection between construction that does not meet codes and roof collapses.

Eliminate.

(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 choice is interesting.

After all, if this choice is true, then it seems logical that the roof would have collapsed even if the nails used had met the codes. After all, if the amount of snow on the roof was greater than the predicted maximum used in drawing up the codes, then even if the construction of the roof had met the codes, the roof may have collapsed.

So, this choice weakens the argument by showing that something other than the use of nails that didn't meet the codes could have been the cause of the collapse and thus attacking the underlying assumption that the failure to meet the codes was the cause of the collapse.

Keep.

(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 choice is a little tricky to eliminate.

After all, if it's true that some code provisions did not apply to the construction of the storage building, then it seems possible that the roof collapsed because it was built in accordance with relatively weak codes.

At the same time, a roof is a roof regardless of whether it's on an office building or a storage building. So, common knowledge and common sense tell us that the codes for the basic construction of a roof would be the just as strong for a storage buidling as for an office building.

In general, this choice indicates that there are  more  codes for office buildings, but that information does not mean that the codes for storage buildings are not sufficient for ensuring sturdy construction of storage buildings.

So, this choice is probably incorrect.

Keep for now but expect not to be the correct answer.

(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 choice provides some background information on how the process of the codes being met generally works.

This information doesn't indicate anything about whether not meeting codes "can have severe consequences."

After all, not meeting codes may or may not have severe consequences regardless of who is responsible for ensuring that they are met.

Eliminate.

(E) Because the equipment-storage building was used for storing snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

This choice indicates that it's likely that there was little damage to contents of the bulding when the roof collapsed. So, in one way, there were not consequences of the collapse.

At the same time, this choice doesn't weaken the argument since, even if there was little damage to contents of the building, the collapse of the roof itself could be considered "severe consequences.

Eliminate.

Final analysis: Since (B) clearly weakens the argument whereas (C) does not clearly indicate that there may have been another reason for the collapse, we can safely choose (B).

Correct answer:  B

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Editorial: The roof of Northtown's municipal equipment-storage buildin

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Editorial: The roof of Northtown's municipal equipment-storage buildin

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards