Bunuel wrote:
Five years ago, the town of Bayside, in the Katontic River Valley, had catastrophic flooding one spring, and consequently, most insurers now refuse to write flood insurance for houses in Bayside. The town of Dryadia, in the Phemptic River Valley, is much like Bayside in its proximity to a similar river at an almost identical point in the river valley. We can conclude that the only reason the same insurers do not write flood insurance for houses in Dryadia either is its similarity to Bayside in terms of where it is situated in the river valley.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously undermine the argument?
(A) A small number of independent insurers will write flood insurance for at least some houses in each of the two towns. I
(B) It is hard for an homeowner to buy flood insurance if a large proportion of other houses in the same town have been flooded in recent years.
(C) In many other towns in the Katonic River Valley, it is hard for home-owners to buy flood insurance.
(D) The town of Dryadia has some flooding most springs.
(E) Flooding from spring surges in rivers is only one of the ways in which a home can become flooded.
Official Explanation
The credited answer is choice (D). If the town of Dryadia really does flood, then that’s the reason insurers won’t write flood insurance for it! Therefore, the “only reason” cannot be “its similarity to Bayside in terms of where it is situated in the river valley.” Choice (D), if true, obliterates the argument, so this is the best answer.
The argument say that “most insurers” don’t write flood insurance in either town, but if most don’t, this implies that some do. Therefore, choice (A) is actually expected from the argument and does not challenge it at all. Choice (A) is incorrect.
Choice (B) would not be surprising, and could be perfectly consistent with the argument. We know Bayside had “catastrophic flooding“, but we don’t know for a fact that every single house was flooded — maybe or maybe not. If some houses were not flooded, it sounds as if the insurers don’t write flood insurance for any house in Bayside, so even those houses that never flooded could not buy flood insurance. Therefore, this would validate (B) without threatening the argument in any way. Choice (B) is incorrect.
Choice (C) is irrelevant. Even if no resident in absolutely any other town up and down the Katonic River Valley can buy flood insurance, that doesn’t necessarily shed light on why folks in a town in a completely different river valley can’t buy insurance. Choice (C) is incorrect.
Choice (E) is too general and vague. Yes, perhaps there are many ways a house can be flooded, and correspondingly, perhaps there are many reasons why an insurer would deny any particular house flood insurance. Even if this is true, it doesn’t shed any light on exactly why the folks in Dryadia have trouble getting flood insurance. Choice (E) is suggestive, but it doesn’t actually tell us anything.
Choice (E) is incorrect.
close
28 Feb 2022, 10:00
58%
(02:24)
wrong 
