In Clark County, recent legislation requires that all new homes built

Question

In Clark County, recent legislation requires that all new homes built with a pool be equipped with door alarms that sound when any door leading to the pool area is opened. The state legislature claims that this will save lives because parents will be alerted when their children enter the pool area. However, many homeowner's associations have protested the new law. The homeowner's associations conclude that few lives will be saved because children are supervised in pool areas over ninety-five percent of the time by their parents.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the homeowner's associations' argument?

(A) Many parents have formal training in CPR to resuscitate children that have fallen into a pool and drowned.

(B) Since new homes with pools represent a small fraction of the homes in Clark County, the law will be rather narrow in scope.

(C) The cost of the new door alarms is not prohibitive for most new home buyers.

(D) Clark County has an excellent system of emergency medical technicians, all of whom are trained to resuscitate children that have fallen into pools and drowned.

(E) Most of the deaths that result from a child falling into a pool occur when parents are home with their child but not supervising the child's activities.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

suntprovident · Answer

The local body has proposed a new law where all  new houses with pools  will require an alarm bell and this will save a few lives.

Counter - Parents say that this is unnecessary as children are majorly (95%) supervised when in pools.

Question type - Weaken

Looking at the answer choices, the thought is ok the children are supervised in 95% cases but what happens in 5% cases when they're not supervised ? Is there anyhting which leads us to say there is a major risk in those cases ?

Well option E points out to that very logical flaw that in such 5% cases the children are unsupervised, they drown.

All other options do not focus on preventive actions as suggested by the argument but rather are outcome oriented and thereby don't weaken the argument.

PS - Apologies for any flaws in my reasoning, just trying to reason out for my prep as it helps me to understand my mistakes better

vasu1104 · Answer

In clark county, recent legislation requires that all new homes built with pool be equipped with door alarms and it will sound when any door dealing to the pool area is opened.
this will save lives because parents will be alerted when children enter the pool area.
many homeowners associations have protested the law.
they said few lives will be saved because 95% of time parents supervised their children.

associations are saying since majority of time kids are supervised then we dont need this new system.

A its not about whether parents have training in CPR or not. this is just out of context here. out.
B so only few house will be with new system but it still can do its job. moreover, the oppositions reasoning is based on the fact that parents anyway keep their eyes. so this choice doesnt attacks associations logic. out.
C this is out of scope. not concerned with cost of it. reject.
D thats good to know for general purpose but it has no bearing on oppositions reasoning. out.
E so that means when parents are not watching, thats the time majority of death occurs. so when we this new system, it will notify the parents and they will be on lookout all the time. hence bad scenarios can be prevented. so this definitely attacks oppositions logic. keep.

choice E

Vivek1707 · Answer

Key Trap:  The homeowners focus on how often children are supervised, but the relevant question is  when drownings occur . If most deaths happen during the brief periods of  unsupervised access , then even infrequent opportunities for the alarm to activate could save many lives.

A.  Incorrect CPR may reduce the  consequences of drowning , but it does not address whether door alarms would prevent children from entering pool areas unsupervised.
 B.  Incorrect This suggests the law's  overall impact may be limited , but it does not weaken the homeowners' claim that few lives will be saved because children are usually supervised.
 C.  Incorrect The affordability of the alarms is irrelevant. The debate is about their effectiveness, not their cost.
 D.  Incorrect Like (A), better emergency care concerns treatment  after  an accident, not whether door alarms can prevent accidents in the first place.
 E. Correct  The homeowners argue that alarms will rarely matter because children are supervised over 95% of the time. If most drowning deaths occur during the small percentage of time when parents are home but  not supervising , then those are precisely the situations in which door alarms could save lives. This directly undermines the homeowners' reasoning.

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The phrase "most seriously weaken" identifies this as a Weaken question. The stimulus says that the homeowner's associations are predicting the new door alarm legislation will not save lives because children are usually supervised by their parents.

Any prediction can be weakened by changing the conditions on which the prediction is based. In this case, look for any information that indicates children are not being supervised, or that the 5% of the time when children are not supervised is leading to deaths in the pools.

(E) matches the prediction and is correct. If it is true that most deaths resulting from a child falling into a pool occur when there is no parental supervision, then the alarms would be helpful in notifying parents and the argument is weakened.

(A) and (D) strengthen the argument. They both give reason to think that even if a drowning occurs in a pool, that there will be qualified people on hand to save the child – and therefore little reason for a door alarm.

(B) strengthens the argument. If the alarms are not widely installed, it's likely that few deaths would be prevented.

(C) is irrelevant. The cost of the door alarm is not a factor. The argument only discusses the ability of the alarms to save children's lives from drowning.

TAKEAWAY:  Weaken a prediction with information that indicates the conditions on which the prediction is based may change.

TheAdmissionHub · Answer

Premises 
 Premise 1 
"In Clark County, recent legislation requires that all new homes built with a pool be equipped with door alarms that sound when any door leading to the pool area is opened."
 
 Premise 2 
 " The state legislature claims that this will save lives because parents will be alerted when their children enter the pool area."
 Premise 3 
"However, many homeowner's associations have protested the new law."
 
 Premise 4 
"The homeowner's associations conclude that few lives will be saved because children are supervised in pool areas over ninety-five percent of the time by their parents."
 
 Conclusion 
"Few lives will be saved."
The homeowner's associations argue that the alarms will have little effect because children are already almost always supervised.
 
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the homeowner's associations' argument?
 
 (A) Many parents have formal training in CPR to resuscitate children that have fallen into a pool and drowned.
  Wrong:  Knowing CPR helps  after  an accident.
The argument is about whether  door alarms prevent accidents  in the first place

(B) Since new homes with pools represent a small fraction of the homes in Clark County, the law will be rather narrow in scope.
  Wrong:  This discusses how many homes are affected.
It does  not  show that alarms save more (or fewer) lives.

(C) The cost of the new door alarms is not prohibitive for most new home buyers.
  Wrong:  cost is not dealt with-

(D) Clark County has an excellent system of emergency medical technicians, all of whom are trained to resuscitate children that have fallen into pools and drowned.
  Wrong:  similar to A
Emergency medical services act  after  the accident.
Door alarms are intended to  prevent  the accident.

(E) Most of the deaths that result from a child falling into a pool occur when parents are home with their child but not supervising the child's activities.
 Correct:  if  most drownings happen precisely during the small percentage of time when parents are home but not watching the child , then door alarms could alert parents during those dangerous moments. So it proves taht the method is valid and weakens the conclusion.

In Clark County, recent legislation requires that all new homes built

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

­In Clark County, recent legislation requires that all new homes built

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

In Clark County, recent legislation requires that all new homes built