Lead water main pipes deliver water to homes and businesses

Question

Lead water main pipes deliver water to homes and businesses all over the city of Redmond. Because of health concerns related to lead, specially trained workers are required to repair the water main pipes, and without repairs, the water main pipes would eventually cease to deliver water effectively. Therefore, taxpayers in the city of Redmond must continue to provide funds to train workers to repair lead-containing materials safely.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?

A) When water main pipes cease to function effectively, they can be left in place without raising health concerns.

B)Although lead water main pipes are a necessary part of the delivery of water in Redmond, some residents also obtain a portion of their water from wells.

C)In response to public demands, the Redmond city council has cut funding for the training of repair workers and increased spending on the city's mass transit system.

D)Repair of water main pipes requires workers to spend long periods of time underground, which increases the expense of training these workers.

E)The development of a safe and durable material for pipes has made repairing lead water main pipes more costly and less practical than replacing them.

rajmatthew · Answer

E- If repairing is more expensive than replacing then this will weaken the argument

Archit143 · Answer

I think its clear e...C is a well set trap. we have to weaken the conclusion that "Provide money to train the workers"
Hence , E which says why not buy new low cost durable pipes is the correct pipes.

Aristocrat pls post OA and OE>>>>>>

Aristocrat · Answer

OA is 'E'

What's wrong with 'D'
I was stuck between 'D' and 'E'

Archit143 · Answer

Question asks to weaken the conclsuion not to explain it So D cannot be the answer

Aristocrat · Answer

OK Can you provide me with an explanation why you have eliminated 'D'?

SVaidyaraman · Answer

The premise of the argument is: "without repairs, the water main pipes would eventually cease to deliver water effectively."

The conclusion of the argument is :"Therefore, taxpayers in the city of Redmond must continue to provide funds to train workers to repair lead-containing materials safely."

To weaken an argument you have to either :

(i) Weaken the premise or 
(ii) Weaken the connection between the premise and the conclusion.

E does (i) and weakens the premise because it says one can do away with repairs but D doesn't say that repairs can be done away with and it also doesn't weaken the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Therefore D is not correct.

Archit143 · Answer

I think i already explained it ut re iterating my point you are asked to weaken not explain hence D cannot be the answer

commdiver · Answer

E

I believe D is incorrect because it does not take the full picture into consideration. It is kind of like the argument that a car dealer wants you to purchase the most expensive car so that they can make a larger profit, when in reality, their cost for that car is also more than the cost for a less expensive car, so they could theoretically actually earn less money on the most expensive car. Answer choice D only considers the cost of training. The cost of training could or could not be worth it when one considers the alternatives.

Answer choice E is correct because it gives a reason not to continue training workers. No matter what it costs to train the workers, it is cheaper to replace the lead pipes 100% of the time.

gmacforjyoab · Answer

OPtion D , is sort of strengthening the conclusion. The conclusion says " taxpayers in the city of Redmond  must continue to provide funds  to train workers to repair lead-containing materials safely" . D says , training these guys is expensive . But you need them to fix the damage so you can get effective water supply. Option D further iterates the fact that tax payers must continue to provide funds , cos these guys are expensive to maintain , hence strengthening the conclusion that "taxpaers must continue to provide funds".

suryav · Answer

Lead water main pipes deliver water to homes and businesses all over the city of Redmond. Because of health concerns related to lead, specially trained workers are required to repair the water main pipes, and without repairs, the water main pipes would eventually cease to deliver water effectively. Therefore, taxpayers in the city of Redmond must continue to provide funds to train workers to repair lead-containing materials safely.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?

A) When water main pipes cease to function effectively, they can be left in place without raising health concerns.

B)Although lead water main pipes are a necessary part of the delivery of water in Redmond, some residents also obtain a portion of their water from wells.

C)In response to public demands, the Redmond city council has cut funding for the training of repair workers and increased spending on the city's mass transit system.

D)Repair of water main pipes requires workers to spend long periods of time underground, which increases the expense of training these workers.

E)The development of a safe and durable material for pipes has made repairing lead water main pipes more costly and less practical than replacing them.

why not B???
it says to some people lead pipes are not required...so why they have to pay the tax.

Br//Suryav

pqhai · Answer

Hi Suryav.
I'm glad to help.

Conclusion is: taxpayers in the city of Redmond must continue to provide funds to train workers to repair lead-containing materials safely.
Taxpayers provide funds because they use lead water main pipes. ==>  they have to provide funds if they use the pipes. It doesn't matter they use more or less .

B says: Although lead water main pipes are a necessary part of the delivery of water in Redmond, some residents also obtain    a portion  of their water   from wells

Clearly, " a portion of their water " means those residents  use both  lead water main pipes and water from wells ==> Therefore, they have to provide funds.

Hope it helps.

Bluelagoon · Answer

if repairing something is more expensive than buying a new one. Than what should one do

. answer is E.

ruhrpumpenpump · Answer

You may know how important fresh water is to our diet, but did you ever think about how much water we consume every day? Americans and Canadians use more water than any other country, even those that are as equally developed. In fact, a typical family of four uses about 350 gallons per day at home for drinking, bathing, clothes and food washing, garden sprinkling, etc. Fortunately, Americans and Canadians enjoy some of the cleanest and safest drinking water in the world.

In other parts of the world, microorganisms that cause life-threatening waterborne diseases such as cholera, typhoid and dysentery often find their way into water supply systems. Diseases associated with dirty water kill more than 25,000 people per day -- more than 9 million each year -- around the world, according to the World Health Organization. Since 1908, however, when chlorine was first used in New Jersey to purify water, such epidemic diseases have been virtually wiped out in the U.S. and Canada.

BeckyRobinsonTPR · Answer

First step in a Weaken Argument is to identify the conclusion. in this case it is that the city must continue to provide funds to train workers. The reasons for this conclusion is that the pipes need specially trained workers to repair them and that if they aren't repaired they will cease to deliver water. Since we are trying to weaken, we need to find an answer that gives a reason why we would not need to contine to provide training.
A) If we can leave the pipes in the ground that is great but doesn't address getting water if they break so it isn't the answer.
B) the word some means that this only applies to part of the population and can't be the answer because some people still need to get water from the pipes.
c) having to stop spending money somewhere else doesn't weaken the fact that you have to spend money in this case.
D) Increasing the expense does not change its necessity.
E) This weakens becuase if we can get water more cheaply without these pipes then we don't need to train new workers to repair them. it is the correct answer.

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.

Lead water main pipes deliver water to homes and businesses

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

Lead water main pipes deliver water to homes and businesses

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