It is currently 11 Dec 2017, 14:07

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In the United States, landowners are effectively insured

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 186

Kudos [?]: 118 [2], given: 23

GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2012, 21:36
2
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

70% (01:37) correct 30% (02:03) wrong based on 462 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In the United States, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters. This “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands because it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster, argues an actuary. If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed.

The actuary's argument makes which of the following assumptions?

A) Natural disasters are most costly when they strike large houses built close together.

B) A large percentage of landowners own several different lands across states.

C) The most careful site selection tends to be by owners building the more expensive houses.

D) The difference in the relief amounts paid to owners by different states has no major effect on site selection.

E) Potential builders can know which lands are secure against disaster.



I does not understand argument of these sentence
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Thriving for CHANGE

Kudos [?]: 118 [2], given: 23

1 KUDOS received
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2754

Kudos [?]: 1923 [1], given: 235

Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Reviews Badge
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2012, 23:36
1
This post received
KUDOS
I think the answer should be D. If you negate it, the conclusion is weakend.

How can E be true? the potential builders are not same as landowners.
_________________

Fight for your dreams :For all those who fear from Verbal- lets give it a fight

Money Saved is the Money Earned :)

Jo Bole So Nihaal , Sat Shri Akaal

:thanks Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog/Facebook :thanks

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Gmat test review :
http://gmatclub.com/forum/670-to-710-a-long-journey-without-destination-still-happy-141642.html

Kudos [?]: 1923 [1], given: 235

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Fighting again to Kill the GMAT devil
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 135

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 48

Location: New Delhi
WE 1: Oil and Gas - Engineering & Construction
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2012, 23:11
Aristocrat wrote:
In the United States, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters. This “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands because it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster, argues an actuary. If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed.

The actuary's argument makes which of the following assumptions?

A) Natural disasters are most costly when they strike large houses built close together.

B) A large percentage of landowners own several different lands across states.

C) The most careful site selection tends to be by owners building the more expensive houses.

D) The difference in the relief amounts paid to owners by different states has no major effect on site selection.

E) Potential builders can know which lands are secure against disaster.



I does not understand argument of these sentence



Argument states that the government insures land against any natural disaster, so land owners don't take sufficient pains to build their homes on areas which are disaster free. and land owners do it because they know that if some disaster happens then government will pay for the insured land.

The author concludes that land owners thus do not take pains to research whether the land which they have bought is disaster prone or not?

This argument assumes that Landowners have sufficient understanding to know what kind of land is disaster prone and what is not.

Hence answer is E.
_________________

Giving Kudos, is a great Way to Help the GC Community Kudos

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 48

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2012, 23:38
Primises 1 : The house owners are insured INDIRECTLY , How ? because after disaster govt give money.
Primises 2 : The govt help is responsible for lot of house in disaster area as it not give any incentive b4 , so that owner can determine which area is safe.

So the answer Clearly E, it assumes people can know which area are safe b4 they build . :idea:

1 Kudo If u Like :wink:

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

CEO
CEO
User avatar
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2754

Kudos [?]: 1923 [0], given: 235

Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Reviews Badge
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2012, 23:41
tapsgmat wrote:
Primises 1 : The house owners are insured INDIRECTLY , How ? because after disaster govt give money.
Primises 2 : The govt help is responsible for lot of house in disaster area as it not give any incentive b4 , so that owner can determine which area is safe.

So the answer Clearly E, it assumes people can know which area are safe b4 they build . :idea:

1 Kudo If u Like :wink:


How can E be true? the potential builders are not same as landowners.
_________________

Fight for your dreams :For all those who fear from Verbal- lets give it a fight

Money Saved is the Money Earned :)

Jo Bole So Nihaal , Sat Shri Akaal

:thanks Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog/Facebook :thanks

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Gmat test review :
http://gmatclub.com/forum/670-to-710-a-long-journey-without-destination-still-happy-141642.html

Kudos [?]: 1923 [0], given: 235

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 534

Kudos [?]: 364 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2012, 23:43
got it right at 2:36 mins :(

In the United States, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters. This “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands because it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster, argues an actuary. If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed.

Meaning
If the Govt. give some benefit to the landowners then the landowners will do some study to find the best lands and construct safer houses.

The actuary's argument makes which of the following assumptions?

A) Natural disasters are most costly when they strike large houses built close together.

B) A large percentage of landowners own several different lands across states.

C) The most careful site selection tends to be by owners building the more expensive houses.

D) The difference in the relief amounts paid to owners by different states has no major effect on site selection.

E) Potential builders can know which lands are secure against disaster.
The landowners will select the best lands and develop , so probability of disaster will be lesser ( and even if any disaster comes , they will be paid subsidy over the repair.)
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Kudos [?]: 364 [0], given: 75

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 186

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 23

GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2012, 01:27
Even i have chosen answer as 'D'
Thanks guys for explanation :-D
_________________

Thriving for CHANGE

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 23

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10155

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jan 2015, 07:03
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.

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2013
Posts: 41

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 7

Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Feb 2015, 18:31
The argument concludes that the “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands, because:
- land owners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters
- it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster
- If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed
E - It must assume that potential buyers are able to know which sites are safe if they are more selective. If it is not, whether they do research, they cannot be more selective. If it is, the conclusion is true.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 7

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Posts: 167

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 48

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT Date: 05-10-2015
GPA: 3.51
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Feb 2015, 19:46
gurpreetsingh wrote:
I think the answer should be D. If you negate it, the conclusion is weakend.

How can E be true? the potential builders are not same as landowners.


Hi Guruprit,

Could you please explain how negating D weakens the conclusion???

Thanx.
_________________

Please give Kudos to the post if you liked.

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 48

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 317

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 88

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V28
GPA: 3.96
WE: Human Resources (Retail Banking)
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2017, 22:01
aniteshgmat1101 wrote:
gurpreetsingh wrote:
I think the answer should be D. If you negate it, the conclusion is weakend.

How can E be true? the potential builders are not same as landowners.


Hi Guruprit,

Could you please explain how negating D weakens the conclusion???

Thanx.



hello,
it might be very late response , see the main purpose in argument that the author wants that if landowners become more selective then govt. has to spend less amount for repair as subsidy ,so in option D even if there is no diff. in subsidies provided by diff. states then how the conclusion will work as it said the more selective they become the less govt. has to spend . so D is actually weakening the.

hope it helps . :lol:

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 88

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Jan 2017
Posts: 324

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 752

CAT Tests
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2017, 12:20
I am also confused between D and E.

In the United States, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters. This “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands because it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster, argues an actuary. If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed.

The actuary's argument makes which of the following assumptions?

D) The difference in the relief amounts paid to owners by different states has no major effect on site selection. - IF IT WERE TRUE - ASSUMPTION IT DEPENDS ON - then owners would choose more selectively, which the actuary says is currently the problem. Thus if consumers get back whatever they invested, then there would be no reason to be more informed about the place of building a house. But if there was, say equal or more, there is no incentive

E) Potential builders can know which lands are secure against disaster. In the beginning it self, author says consumers don't really asses this. Then how can it be the assumption?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 752

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 437

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 98

Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2017, 12:32
Aristocrat wrote:
In the United States, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters. This “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands because it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster, argues an actuary. If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed.

The actuary's argument makes which of the following assumptions?

A) Natural disasters are most costly when they strike large houses built close together.

B) A large percentage of landowners own several different lands across states.

C) The most careful site selection tends to be by owners building the more expensive houses.

D) The difference in the relief amounts paid to owners by different states has no major effect on site selection.

E) Potential builders can know which lands are secure against disaster.



Landowners insured against natural disasters => high % of houses are built on disaster prone areas as there is no incentive to do otherwise.
If owners were more selective, the area would need to be safe before the builders could build on them.

Gap - It's easy to know if a particular piece of land is safe.

A - Out. The arguments mentions nothing about the size of houses, or their arrangement.
B - Out. Irrelevant.
C - Out. The Argument says owners should be more selective, but it doesn't mean anything about them being careful, or if the size of a house makes a difference.
D - Out. This statement goes a little too beyond the scope of this argument. We need to make an assumption by considering the relief amount paid by govts. of different states for different areas, to even consider this as an unstated assumption for the argument.
E - Keep. Builders can know which lands are safe.

Why E?
If I negate E i.e. there is no way to know which piece of land is safe from natural disasters, then this entire argument FALLS apart. If I cannot know which piece of land is safe, no amount of financial incentive from the govt. or selection from a land owner will help in building houses in areas 'considered' safe.

That's why E is the answer.
_________________

Put in the work, and that dream score is yours!

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 98

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Jan 2017
Posts: 324

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 752

CAT Tests
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2017, 12:51
akshayk wrote:
Aristocrat wrote:
In the United States, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters. This “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands because it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster, argues an actuary. If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed.

The actuary's argument makes which of the following assumptions?

A) Natural disasters are most costly when they strike large houses built close together.

B) A large percentage of landowners own several different lands across states.

C) The most careful site selection tends to be by owners building the more expensive houses.

D) The difference in the relief amounts paid to owners by different states has no major effect on site selection.

E) Potential builders can know which lands are secure against disaster.



Landowners insured against natural disasters => high % of houses are built on disaster prone areas as there is no incentive to do otherwise.
If owners were more selective, the area would need to be safe before the builders could build on them.

Gap - It's easy to know if a particular piece of land is safe.

A - Out. The arguments mentions nothing about the size of houses, or their arrangement.
B - Out. Irrelevant.
C - Out. The Argument says owners should be more selective, but it doesn't mean anything about them being careful, or if the size of a house makes a difference.
D - Out. This statement goes a little too beyond the scope of this argument. We need to make an assumption by considering the relief amount paid by govts. of different states for different areas, to even consider this as an unstated assumption for the argument.
E - Keep. Builders can know which lands are safe.

Why E?
If I negate E i.e. there is no way to know which piece of land is safe from natural disasters, then this entire argument FALLS apart. If I cannot know which piece of land is safe, no amount of financial incentive from the govt. or selection from a land owner will help in building houses in areas 'considered' safe.

That's why E is the answer.


Oh! Yes D states too many assumptions - different states and different areas. So there could be too many answers from this.
So E is the best option as it explains the behavior of the people, though it is still slightly flawed. :)
Thank you for the explanation!

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 752

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 18 Mar 2015
Posts: 100

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 113

Location: India
Schools: ISB '19
GMAT 1: 600 Q47 V26
GPA: 3.59
Reviews Badge
Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2017, 10:56
can you break down this argument in conclusion and premises and explain how E is correct ? I read others comment but still not convinced with the description

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 113

Re: In the United States, landowners are effectively insured   [#permalink] 17 Jul 2017, 10:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In the United States, landowners are effectively insured

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.