NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 02 May 2024, 07:58 It is currently 02 May 2024, 07:58
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Difficulty: Sub 505 Levelx   Weakenx                                 
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
B
WaterFlowsUp
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Status:Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Posts: 337
Own Kudos [?]: 1901 [39]
Given Kudos: 92
Location: United States (DE)
GPA: 3.32
WE:Information Technology (Health Care)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 29 Feb 2024, 02:13
8
Kudos
31
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

91% (01:28) correct 9% (01:45) wrong based on 4147 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire. However, a home builder argued that because more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?

(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
E

Originally posted by WaterFlowsUp on 16 Oct 2013, 07:11.
Last edited by Bunuel on 29 Feb 2024, 02:13, edited 6 times in total.
Most Helpful Reply
avatar
B
das.sushmit
Intern
Intern
Joined: 14 Jul 2013
Posts: 13
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [6]
Given Kudos: 93
Send PM
Re: A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink] New post   25 Feb 2015, 08:15
3
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire. However, a home builder argued that because more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?


(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.
(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.
(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.
(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.
(E) The largest proportion of property damage that
results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.



While considering weakening questions focus on the conclusion of the stimulus, here the homebuilder talks about how fires are extinguished by household members 90% of the time and gives additional reasoning saying that the sprinklers would marginally help stopping the fires and decrease the property damage. One way of weakening would be to show or give stats saying that the absence of household members would cause the fire to propagate and perpetuate. Hence we go through the answer options to check if anything matches this consideration.

A> out of scope -- no mention of training so it isnt even tangential so not essential to the stimulus
B>though it would be narrow in scope this option does not address the conclusion and should be eliminated
C>while this does talk about the merit of a smoke detector over a sprinkler it does not talk about damage control so is definitely out of context
D>again out of scope-- we're considering sprinkler installation over household member presence so cannot be considered
E> this is the correct answer, it correctly points out the weakness in the housebuilder's argument and the key here is matching the phrase property damage.

hope this helps!
General Discussion
User avatar
L
carcass
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4394
Own Kudos [?]: 32932 [3]
Given Kudos: 4460
Send PM
Re: A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink] New post   16 Oct 2013, 14:15
1
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Maybe for a novic is a tough question, i understand this but indeed is a sub 600 level question

E straight. :roll:
User avatar
B
BrainLab
Current Student
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 360
Own Kudos [?]: 2699 [3]
Given Kudos: 200
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: WHU MBA"20 (A$)
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.7
WE:Marketing (Telecommunications)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink] New post   24 Feb 2015, 13:52
3
Kudos
01:09 straight E... B,C,D are either irrelevant or strengthen the argument. Only A could be a contender here
Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires - However, 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, that means they just don't need any training......
User avatar
S
AnubhavK
Mannheim Thread Master
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Status:It's now or never
Posts: 130
Own Kudos [?]: 63 [2]
Given Kudos: 51
Location: India
Schools: HHL Leipzig"20 Mannheim"19 IMD Jan'18
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
GPA: 3
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink] New post   16 Aug 2017, 06:35
2
Kudos
E is correct - Identifies a weakness in the home builder's argument by showing that most damage occurs when no household member is present to put out the fire.
avatar
S
mba757
Current Student
Joined: 15 Jun 2020
Posts: 319
Own Kudos [?]: 81 [3]
Given Kudos: 245
Location: United States
Schools: Darden '24 (A) Fuqua '24 (WL) Kellogg '24 (D)
GPA: 3.3
Send PM
Re: A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink] New post   22 Aug 2020, 08:10
3
Kudos
Conclusion: residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires [because a home builder argued that b/c more than 90% of residential fires are extinguished by a household member]
Prethink: Does the percentage of residential fires and amount of property damage correlate with one another? What if the 10% of fires equates to a lot more property damage?

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?
(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.
We want to weaken the point that sprinklers -> marginal decrease in prop. damage from residential fire. WHAT they did to learn to extinguish fires is completely irrelevant.

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.
Opposite trap – this is a strengthener, if anything. If there’s only a tiny percentage of these new houses then there is a more the reason to believe that the property damage decrease would be marginal.

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.
Out of scope – the costs have nothing to do with the immediate argument/conclusion. We want to weaken the point that sprinklers -> marginal decrease in prop. damage from residential fire

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.
Out of scope – we’re concerned with sprinklers and its applicability to property damage (by residential fires). It doesn’t matter how (and how quickly) the fire extinguished by another entity.

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.
Bingo, this shows that the property damage and percentage of residential fires aren’t necessarily correlates. The largest proportion of damage actually comes from the smaller subset of the population that doesn’t have any household member present – the 10%.
User avatar
L
kntombat
Retired Moderator
Joined: 28 Feb 2020
Posts: 948
Own Kudos [?]: 486 [1]
Given Kudos: 839
Location: India
WE:Other (Other)
Send PM
Re: A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink] New post   13 Oct 2020, 03:04
1
Kudos
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?


(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires. (For a moment, I thought that this could be the answer and marked it as a contender but on coming across answer E, I ruled this out immediately.)

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope. (Out of scope, no one is talking about the scope of the new ordinance.)

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers. (Out of scope, smoke detectors haven't been mentioned in the stimulus.)

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average. (Opposite Answer, the home builder can state this point as a reason against installing sprinklers.)

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present. (this our answer, as this counters the home builder's point perfectly and weakens his argument .)

The OA is E.

Thank you.
User avatar
B
stackskillz
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2022
Posts: 63
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [1]
Given Kudos: 163
Send PM
Re: A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink] New post   11 Mar 2024, 15:54
1
Kudos
This is the quick solution I came up with:

Conc: Residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires. - Can co-exist with the conclusion above. No need to think too much. Drop

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope - This actually strengthens the argument. Since, only a small sliver of housing in the city will have the sprinklers and since 90% of fires are extinguished by household members, sprinklers might be an ineffective addition. Drop

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers - We are specifically talking about the necessity of sprinklers and preventing property damage caused by fire. Whether smoke detectors are cheaper or not doesn't impact the conclusion. Drop

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average - The speed of response of the fire dept. could be a magnitude better or worse than national average, however, it's still entirely possible that sprinklers are not that effective since they are not needed most of the time. This option actually tries to suggest that sprinklers are not needed, since fire-depts. are very responsive. Not what we're looking for (and not what you want to hear from your fire safety inspector). Drop

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present. Hits the bulls-eye. If the largest proportion of property damage results when no household member is present, the sprinklers look like a welcome addition. Also notice, that the conclusion talks about property damage but substantiates the claims with number of fires extinguished. Those 2 are related, but not the same. This option gives us a reason ,i.e., fires in unattended houses cause the most damage. Keep
User avatar
B
agrasan
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Posts: 28
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 538
Location: India
Send PM
A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink] New post   03 Apr 2024, 10:35
WaterFlowsUp wrote:
A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire. However, a home builder argued that because more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?

(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.

­Hi GMATNinja KarishmaB

Could you please explain why option A is not correct?
Our confidence should be reduced if most individuals are not formally trained to extinguish fires.­
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14854
Own Kudos [?]: 65040 [1]
Given Kudos: 429
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink] New post   03 Apr 2024, 20:40
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
agrasan wrote:
WaterFlowsUp wrote:
A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire. However, a home builder argued that because more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?

(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.

­Hi GMATNinja KarishmaB

Could you please explain why option A is not correct?
Our confidence should be reduced if most individuals are not formally trained to extinguish fires.­

­It is irrelevant that people are not formally trained.
We are given in the argument "more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member"
We know that even without formal training they are able to extinguish the fire so it doesn't matter whether they have training or not. Perhaps its a skill passed on from generation to generation, we don't care. As long as they are able to extinguish fires, its fine - we don't need sprinklers. 

The problem is that most damage is caused by fires that start when no one is present - say in case of short circuit. Then they need to be managed using sprinklers. Hence this weakens that sprinklers are not important. 

Answer (E)
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl [#permalink]
03 Apr 2024, 20:40
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6923 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions