In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious constr

Question

In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

A. Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction.

B. The government prefers leasing facilities to owning them in cases where the two alternatives are equally cost-effective.

C. If facilities available for leasing come very close to meeting the government's requirements for facilities the government needs, the government can relax its own requirements slightly and consider those facilities in compliance.

D. The government's construction projects would not on being completed, add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned.

E. Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are more cost-effective.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Without (D), the government's constructions projects COULD add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned. So what? If those new buildings include needed facilities such as court houses and laboratories, then the new buildings are likely to be filled quickly.

In other words, we are not adding to the stock of vacant  offices . We are building facilities that are in demand. Upon completion, we will indeed have an increased stock of facilities available for leasing. But since those facilities are in demand, they will likely be leased and occupied quickly.

(A), on the other hand, is definitely required. Without it, there is a  more cost-effective alternative to new construction . That means that new construction is NOT the most cost-effective solution. Going with a solution that is NOT the most cost-effective would be fiscally wasteful.

(A) is the best answer.

mikemcgarry · Answer

First of all, getgyan , thank you for emailing me on Archit143 's behalf. Dear Archit143 To email me, all you have to do is find any post in which I have posted, and click on my highlighted screenname. That will take you to my profile page. On the profile page, on the left side, in a column under my screen name, you will see a gray button that says "send private message." That's how you can send a private message to any GC user. For this particular question, I will only discuss (A) & (E), since those are the two that confuse you. In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness. Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends? (A) Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction. The classic test for an assumption, as folks above have said, is the "negation test" --- negate the statement, and if that devastates the argument, that's an assumption. You may find this blog helpful. https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/arguments- ... -the-gmat/ Here, let's assume the opposite of (A). Assume that we would save money, that it would be more cost effective, to renovate and adapt those existing offices spaces, rather than build whole new ones. Well, if that's true, then building new ones, the more expensive option, would definitely be more wasteful. That obliterates the conclusion of this argument, so this is a strong candidate for the the correct answer. (E) Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective. This is a subtle point. Anything that involves extreme language is wrong on the GMAT Verbal section . Extremity can involve very strong emotions, very strong judgments, or, as in this case, extreme scenarios or standards or criteria. Consider the following hierarchy of scenarios ---- before embarking on any major construction project, the government ..... (a) has a policy of reviewing cost effectiveness with an advisory board (b) must have the cost effectiveness approved by a majority (or 2/3) of the state assembly (c) must submit the proposal to binding arbitration that will decide whether it is cost effective and hence, whether to permit it (d) is required by law to establish, to a majority opinion of a panel of judges/jurors/experts, that it is cost effective civil cases] (e) is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that it is cost effective criminal cases] Notice that (e), the standard for decision in criminal cases, is the strictest decision-making criterion encoded in the law anywhere . Options (a) - (d) are all less serious, less imposing, than (e). In this sense, (e) is an extreme case --- saying that the judgment will be held to the highest standard known anywhere in the legal system. In essence, we are saying --- of 1000 potential projects, if even one cost ineffective project is allowed and goes through, that would be as great a tragedy as, in a 1000 criminal court cases, one innocent person is condemned to a criminal sentence. That latter is a true real-life tragedy, unfairly destroying some poor person's whole life! (That's exactly what the Founding Fathers were hoping to avoid by establishing such a demanding criterion.) Spending a bit too much money on a government construction project -- not ideal, but certainly not a tragedy of the same magnitude!! Do you see what I mean? Yes, it's not a good thing when the government overspends, but saying that it's so bad that it has to be held to the highest criterion that appears anywhere in the entire legal system --- that's extreme. Obviously, if we negated option (E), which follows standard (e), any of (a)-(d) could still be true, and if any of those were true, it would support the conclusions. This is why (E) doesn't work. (A) has to be the answer. You don't have to be an expert on the legal system, but you do need to recognize that key phrase: " to establish beyond any reasonable doubt ." That is the standard in every criminal case in the US legal system, again so extremely demanding and hard to demonstrate, because the system is trying to avoid the tragedy of condemning an innocent person to prison. Nothing else in the entire legal system, in the entire government, is held to that lofty standard. Even in civil cases in the legal system, you only have to demonstrate it to a majority of the jurors to win. In a criminal cases, the decision must be unanimous --- all 12 people must agree that the person is guilty. That's why, as soon as I saw those words in (E) --- some governmental fiscal thing held to the standard of "beyond any reasonable doubt" --- right away, I knew that was far to extreme to be a correct answer on the GMAT. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

Indien · Answer

A
It is a tough one.

B. No. If two options are equally cost effective, you can choose one and not be blamed for wastefulness. It is a matter of preference.
C. No. it is asking you to change the premise, which says that the vacant spaces are not suited to the govt needs.
D. No. the scenario is about starting and suspending the construction. The argument is about the whole action.
E. No. extreme statement. 
 
A. if you logically negate A -- "Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible,  would make  leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction"-- it would impact the conclusion. So, the right answer.

RaviChandra · Answer

P1:The government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. 
P2:The vacant offices do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed.

Conclusion: The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

ok for this question assumption should be some thing that states that "these old houses are noway useful for the Offices (This is what i felt after i read the Question)

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

A) Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction.

D) The government's construction projects would not on being completed, add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned.(I feel D is going out of the conclusion)

Always remember in Assumption Question.

Assumption should be very closely related to Conclusion
&
Negating the Assumption Conclusion should not be valid

These 2 are very imp for Assumption Questions

Archit143 · Answer

I am really confused between A and E can som1 give solid reason to believe why E is not the answer

getgyan · Answer

Let us look at it another way. This is a very crude way of approaching Assumptions type question. We have to fit the assumption in either between the premises or between the premise and the conclusion. Let us take your option first Option E Case 1 : In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness. Case 2 : In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness. Option A Case 3 : In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness Case 4 : In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. The vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction. The government, therefore, is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness. Now tell me which option sounds the best? :-D

carcass · Answer

A is the only make sense as assumption

the other choices do not hold any water

A)  Adaption of vacant office space to meet the governments requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such space a more cost effective alternative to new construction.

B) the government  prefers leasing facilities to owning them  in cases where the two alternatives are equally cost effective

C) I f facilities available for leasing  come very close to meeting the governments requirements  for facilities the government needs, the government relax its own requirements slightly and consider those facilities in compliance.

D) the government's construction projects  would not, on being completed, add to the stock of the facilities available for leasing  in the cities concerned.

E)  before embarking on any construction project , the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are more cost effective.

for the reason in A the gov spend more money but is not guilty

jgomey · Answer

I found it easier to answer this question by thinking about it this way:

The government has two choices-lease the space and then retrofit it, or create a whole new construction. In order for the new construction to make sense from a "fiscal" standpoint, the new construction would have to be less expensive than retrofitting the existing buildings would be.

So if you consider those choices, how then is answer "D" relevant? "D" is out of scope..

What are your thoughts Carcass?

pikolo2510 · Answer

Hey  GMATNinja

Can you explain the difference between Option A and Option D? Both options if negated shatter the conclusion. Can you put some light on this?

abhigulia3006 · Answer

Completely agree. Still cannot figure out how to eliminate option D. The conclusion is -The government is not guilty of fiscal wastefulness. However, should the projects end up joining the stock of facilities available for leasing, the government can be held responsible for fiscal wastefulness and the argument would fall apart. There is also no mention of the fact that the government projects will meet the requirements upon completion

aragonn · Answer

Premise:  
1. gov helps with ambitious construction projects despite the high office-vacancy rates in those cities. --- so offices/buildings are empty and still gov is initiating ambitious construction projects, something fishy in first line.
2. moreover vacant offices, though available for leasing, unfortunately do not meet the requirements for the facilities needed. Explains the first line.

Conclusion:  
The government is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

pre-thinking:  why gov in not guilty, indeed. may be they are not doing anything wrong. may be this is the best solution ever to construct new projects. may be other alternatives are already rejected .

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

A. Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction.   --- Adaptation of vacant office + make leasing such office space vs new construction, which one is better ? 
Adaptation of vacant office this means change office space to make it batter for such use. in other words what ever you don't have get it. now cost of (office on lease with gov requirements) >(cost effective) to new construction. then lets not do it.
moreover if we negate it. conclusion falls. gov is guilty not to try an effective method.

B. The government prefers leasing facilities to owning them in cases where the two alternatives are equally cost-effective. --- we don't know if any as such.

C. If facilities available for leasing come very close to meeting the government's requirements for facilities the government needs, the government can relax its own requirements slightly and consider those facilities in compliance. --- if gov don't relax, is it still guilty ? No.

D. The government's construction projects would not on being completed, add to the stock of facilities available for leasing in the cities concerned. --- yes, may be true, how guilty gov proved from this.

E. Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective. --- if gov is not required by law then its not a problem. they are not guilty.

KarishmaB · Answer

Govt has undertaken many construction projects. 
There are already many vacant offices but they don't meet requirements.

Conclusion: The government is not guilty of any fiscal wastefulness.

Assumption - What we NEED to be true to conclude that Govt is not being wasteful.

A. Adaptation of vacant office space to meet the government's requirements, if possible, would not make leasing such office space a more cost-effective alternative to new construction.

Correct. If we are concluding that the Govt is not wasting money, we are assuming that converting vacant office space to include requirements is not more cost effective. We know that there is vacant office space. If adapting it to requirements were cheaper, then the govt would be wasting money.

B. The government prefers leasing facilities to owning them in cases where the two alternatives are equally cost-effective.
We don't need it to be true. We are judging cost effectiveness, not preference.

E. Before embarking on any major construction project, the government is required by law to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no alternatives that are most cost-effective.

Think about it - an assumption is what we NEED to be true for our argument. Do we need the law to require this? If it were true then it helps our case, agreed, but for our argument to stand, do we need the law to require this from the Govt? No.

Answer (A)

agrasan · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   KarishmaB   IanStewart ,

I need your help here. I think I chose option D because I didn't interpret it properly.

Option D =  The government's construction projects would not on being completed, add to the stock of  facilities available  for leasing in the cities concerned.
 
My understanding was:
 "facilities available"  for leasing = facilities that are currently available (before new construction) and favorable for leasing i.e. facilities apart from court houses and laboratories.
By thinking above and upon negation, I thought that there would be an oversupply in the market by adding newly constructed projects to the stock of offices that are already good for leasing so negated D will break down the conclusion.

Where did I go wrong here and how to avoid this kind of mistake? Due to this, I went ahead with the option D and rejected option A by thinking that it is talking about an alternate plan.

GMATNinja · Answer

New construction WOULD add to the stock of facilities available for leasing. According to the author, that's fine and not wasteful. Why? Because the current stock does NOT meet the requirements for the facilities needed, such as court houses and laboratories. Adding to the stock is fine, as long the government is adding the stuff that is missing and needed. So (D) is not a required assumption. For more on (A) vs (D), check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-several-c ... l#p2049711.

In several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious constr

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 several cities, the government is going ahead with ambitious constr

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