Economist: Construction moves faster in good weather than in bad, so m

To fill the blank let's find the position required by the blank: The blank should give another reason(because) to this discrepancy :does not lead to overall increases in construction

A) Often travel doesn't imply that there won't be any workers available even if work is available in this area.
B)Short supply to one>> may be its stocked by some and construction is done. So even this can't explain
C)So many builders may get loan and many may build. Opposite

D)This is the only option which explains discrepancy : if climate can't be predicted properly. May be winter prediction turns out to bring summer or any other unwanted thing>>>> constructions won't boom as expected.

E) So this adds even more to discrepancy saying that more buildings can be built.

therefore OA:D

F1: Construction work moves faster in good weather
F2: If there is mild winter in an area that usually experience harsh winter then the construction work in the said area will boom.
Why? Because Construction workers will be able to complete their work in time.
But
(Conclusion)Forecasting mild weather does not lead to overall increase in construction in those areas.
Why?
Reason#1: Construction loans are often obtained more than a year in advance.
This means builders get the fixed amount of money for the buildings that they will build in next year.
So even if they will be able to finish the building in mild winter, they will not have money to start the new construction.
Therefore we can't say there will be an increase in the construction.
What can be the other reason??

Answer option must give a reason to believe that mild weather does not increase overall increase in the construction.

A) construction workers often travel to warmer climates in the wintertime in search of work
If it's true that construction workers travel to warmer areas during wintertime then workforce will be reduced in wintertime.
So this answer option basically trying to say that construction work may be reduced during winter due to reduced labor
But can we say labor is reduced to that level that it will impact the construction work? May be there are 100 people working
on a site and some of them were sitting on a bench (Not working ..interns/helpers) and these people left to the warmer areas for work.
Or it's possible that construction workers are 'travelling' to the warmer areas during weekends and they are coming back to
winter areas (where there families are) to finish their work in weekdays. So we can't say for sure that this can be a reason to believe that mild
weather does not lead to overall increase in construction work.

B) construction materials are often in short supply during construction booms.
First of all this answer option does not tell that construction is booming in winter or any other season.
It's just saying whenever it booms, the supplies goes low.
So can we say anything about construction work happened in mild winter? No. We cannot! We can't even say if the construction work was increased or decreased.

C) many builders in these areas are likely to apply for construction loans at the same time
Now, in the original sentence one reason is given that builders get loan for the construction a year before the actual start of the work.
so another reason should not be the same. Because author is trying to give you two reasons (, and because...) So this can't be the correct answer option.
This answer option says many of the builders do apply for the loan at the same time. So, by using the given fact that they get loan
a year before the actual start of the work. The builders who all applied together may start working together during mild weather.
But since they all were having fixed money.. can we say that the construction work increased during this time? No.
Basically the same reason, which is already given.

D) it is frequently the case that forecasted weather trends do not actually occur
Now, If this is true that the forecasted weather trends are not true sometimes then we can definitely say that at least sometimes the
construction work was impacted during winters. This suggests that the construction work either reduced or remained the same as that of other winters, if not increased.
Bingo!

E) mild winters are generally followed by spring and summer weather that promotes more rapid construction
Argument is about construction in mild weather conditions. Construction happening in summer or spring is out of context.

This one is tough. I had it between C and D, and ended up choosing C. However, here's my post-attempt analysis.
Construction moves faster in good weather than in bad, so mild winters in areas that usually experience harsh conditions can appear to create construction booms as builders complete projects that would otherwise have to wait. - Economist lays down the foundation of the passage by comparing construction pace during good weather and during bad weather, faster in good weather. Now, comes the important part of the passage. Areas that usually experience harsh conditions have sometimes mild winders, thus creating construction boom i.e. most of the construction(say yearly) of that area happens during that short period of time. Otherwise projects gets on hold for the reason that area is known for harsh winters. (A likely assumption(may be true in real world) on economist part is that harsh winters causes interruption in completing projects.)

But forecasting one mild winter or even two for such areas generally does not lead to overall increases in construction during these periods, because construction loans are often obtained more than a year in advance, and because __________. - Economist takes a turn as suggested by word 'but'. S/he says that even though weather is forecasted for those areas, it does not help in increasing the construction during those periods. Why so! S/he gives reasons as suggested by word 'because' used twice. One reason is that builders get construction loans more than a year in advance. And the other reason is .....

I think the difficult part of this passage is figuring out properly how the two sentence are related. Once we do that we are good to pick up analysing choices - mind it that the choices may have convoluted language that may overthrow us.

Keywords(generic): so, usually, but, generally,
Keywords(Passage specific): appear, forecasting, does not lead
(The keywords may vary depending on one's train of thought. They can be more or less.)

So, we need to find the reason(keeping the other one in mind) that will help us to figure out the paradox(sort of) that why the lean phase continues during those periods in those areas, even when we have forecasts available. I think, by now, a couple of things are clear to us.

A) construction workers often travel to warmer climates in the wintertime in search of work - Does every worker leave those areas in search of work? This is too open a choice that it can either favour or not favour or remain neutral to our cause.

B) construction materials are often in short supply during construction booms - This is somewhat irrelevant. Note that the booms are notional - they seem to APPEAR when in reality they are not.

C) many builders in these areas are likely to apply for construction loans at the same time - This one personally i think is a candidate. If most of the builder in those areas take loans at the same time and all loans are given in more than a year in advance, then it does help explain the paradox. However, there are a couple of things to note in this choice.
a) many - what does 'many' means? It can be 5 - 6 out of 100 or 70-80 out of 100.
b) likely to apply - 'likely to apply' does not mean they get the loans.
c) same time - if many apply at the same, does it mean they get loans at the same time.
(Arghhh... why did not i had such clear thoughts during actual attempt )

D) it is frequently the case that forecasted weather trends do not actually occur - CORRECT. Frankly, at first, i thought it can't be the answer. The reason being that it is directly countering the passage. Wait.... it basically means the forecasted weather never happens to occur i.e. if the mild weather is forecasted for coming winder season, it is highly likely that mild winter would not occur(so there is no notional construction boom). Thus, the usual harsh conditions of winters would occur, leading to no overall increases in construction.

E) mild winters are generally followed by spring and summer weather that promotes more rapid construction - So what! At best, i would say it's irrelevant. If at all considered this one goes in the opposite direction. But this is the easiest of them all to eliminate.

I can't deny the fact that each of the choices does have an outside chance to be the answer as each elaborates external factors that may help explain the paradox. But the one does so by relating to the crux of the passage is the right one.

For D, it also likely that if one can simply chose but only if s/he understand the passage so well.
Hope this is helpful.

Answer D.

Hey VeritasKarishma


Your analysis for eliminating option A doesn't sound persuading enough to me. Here's why.

A) construction workers often travel to warmer climates in the wintertime in search of work




We cannot challenge the answer options since they have to be taken as something true. Therefore, how can we say/think that the workers are likely to stick around when option A clearly says, "construction workers often travel to warmer climates in the wintertime in search of work"?

Another point- We are talking about areas that usually experience harsh conditions, and one can fairly agree that whether it be a mild winter or not so mild winter will occur during the winter season. Since this is an area that usually experiences harsh conditions we can safely say that it also experiences harsh winter conditions during which there are forecasts of mild winter. By the time the forecasts would have happened, since the area is already in a harsh winter conditions , workers would have left.

I see why option E is correct, but I just can't see a clear justification for eliminating option A. Could you help?

Workers leaving in winters is the effect of less construction work available.
Option (A) says that they leave for warmer places in search of work. The reason for leaving is given to you. Then if work is available, they may not leave.
As I explained above, a reason for leaving such as "visiting family because kids have holidays in winter" or "to farm winter crops in their hometowns" could mean that workers may not be available, whether work is available or not in winter.
But since we have been clearly given that they leave searching for work, it makes no sense for them to leave when work is available.

Option (E) on the other hand clearly states that forecasts are usually wrong. This means builders will not make their plans based on forecasts and since loans are taken in advance, they will not be able to make good use of a mild winter.

Hi experts avigutman AndrewN IanStewart GMATNinja

I answered this question incorrectly, partly because I did not precisely understand the meaning of the stimulus. I've checked all the previous posts in this thread, and could I check a few points with you? Thank you.

1. "appear"

Economist: Construction moves faster in good weather than in bad, so mild winters in areas that usually experience harsh conditions can appear to create construction booms as builders complete projects that would otherwise have to wait. But forecasting one mild winter or even two for such areas generally does not lead to overall increases in construction during these periods, because construction loans are often obtained more than a year in advance, and because __________.

The word "appear" appears in many SC sentences, in those with archaeological topics especially, and usually the word just means "seem," without implying that whatever something or someone appears to be must be false.

Here, I wonder whether we can, by merely reading "mild winters...appear to create construction booms," be certain that the mild winters do not really help create the construction booms? I suppose not, but hope to confirm. I think only after we read the second sentence "But forecasting one mild winter or even two...generally does not lead to overall increases in construction...," we can be sure that forecasting the mild winters (not the winters themselves) does not help create the construction boom.

2. Does it matter to concern whether there is a construction boom?

While practicing, I thought that the stimulus ends with saying that such a construction boom does not exist despite the weather forecast, and that our task was just to find a reason why there is no such a boom despite the weather forecast. Hence, more than one option looked acceptable to me, as long as it states something that is disadvantageous to construction and is different from the given reason that the loans are approved one year in advance.

But after some review, I found that what the stimulus means is that forecasting the good weather does not cause the effect (construction booms), and that it never says that there is no such a construction boom. Thus, our task is not to find a reason why the boom does not exist, but to provide a reason why a factor is not a cause of the effect, even though it looks like one or looks relevant to a cause, right?

In other words, this CR question tests the cause-effect relationship, and unlike most questions that ask us to consider the possibility of a reversed relationship or another cause, this question asks us to give a reason why something is not the cause.


3. I thought (D) is like a common sense....

When I read the correct option (D), my first reaction is that it is too "common sense" to be true. It is a bit weird to see such a formal test use a common sense as a valid premise. Although now I can see that (D) works well with the first reason (loan are often given a year in advance), to deliver a message "builders need to apply for the loans more than one year in advance and it is hard for them to take an one-year weather forecast into account as the forecast could be wrong," I tend to have some reservation for "common sense" options. Do I need to correct my mindset?

(I admire most CR questions since they are clever or fantastic, but this question, with the correct option, kind of says nothing at all, in my opinion. "Why does this economist even bother to talk about the weather forecast in the first place if the prediction is not reliable?" Alright, maybe his or her main purpose is to show that the weather forecast is not of much worth in the decision of new construction projects.)


Thank you for your time and thoughts!
Thank you for helping learn.

Hello, GraceSCKao. I will respond inline below.


This appear is not fundamentally different from what you thought it meant. The presence of can in front of it, though, allows more room for interpretation. Taken together, the context of the sentence suggests something like would seem. In conversation, I would expect someone to say, Construction moves faster..., so you would think mild winters... would create construction booms... The reason we can be sure that we are meant to doubt that these construction booms actually occur during such mild winters for the reason we would expect is that the next sentence starts with but. In other words, I would not restrict my interpretation to one sentence if another comments on it by signaling a contrast.


I would not think in such rigid terms to define the type of CR question this may be. Rather, I would seek to grasp just what the two sentences are saying, and how they relate to each other. Yes, sentence one tells us that builders complete projects that would otherwise have to wait when areas that usually experience harsh conditions get mild winters instead. That is to be taken as a fact. But then, out of nowhere, the second sentence introduces forecasting, and also introduces the notion that builders must obtain loans more than a year in advance. Hence, what appeared to have been spur-of-the-moment construction booms were the result of processes undertaken a year before, plus something else (our answer).


Yes, answer choice (D) is common sense, but it is the one answer that does not require making unfounded assumptions to work. Sometimes more challenging questions are difficult not because they are inherently more nuanced, but because people want to furnish information that the passage does not justify. I agree with you that a real-life economist would not need to make such a silly statement on the weather and how forecasts one year out might not make a difference to construction projects, but that is just how the GMAT™ works. You should not let such considerations cloud your reasoning of the information at hand. You just need to play the game by the rules.

It will be interesting to see what others have to say. Thank you for thinking to ask for my input.

- Andrew

Hi GraceSCKao, I was happy with the response you got from AndrewN.
I'll just add that I view this problem as asking us to 'explain the surprising phenomenon.'
Given the first sentence, one would expect that a forecast of "one mild winter or even two for such areas generally does not WOULD lead to overall increases in construction during these periods."
Our task is to figure out why such a forecast doesn't lead to the result that one might expect.
Does that help?

Thank you so much AndrewN and avigutman for your kind responses!
Your thoughts and explanations are really helpful.

On days' reflection, I think that I had trouble with this CR question because I was distracted by an issue that is not the core of this argument--"So is there a construction boom in these areas during such mild winters or not?" After I made my own interpretation that there is no such a boom, I felt attracted by the option (A) and got myself in a circular reasoning. (No boom-> no many work opportunities in these areas even during mild winters->(A) tells us workers often leave to warm places in search of work, (A) fits here->so the weather forecast is useless because there will be no enough workers anyway->no boom)

By comparison, if a test taker makes his or her own interpretation that there is a construction boom, he or she might feel interested at the option (B). But since (B) says that there have been already construction booms, it implies that the shortage of construction materials does not really prevent the construction booms. Anyway (B) cannot work well with the conclusion that forecasting the weather does not lead to overall increases in construction.

Thanks to your insights, now I can see the argument more clearly--we have no way to know whether there is a construction boom, and such an issue is not the core of this question either. Instead, we need to find a reason why forecasting the good weather does not cause increases in construction, even tough the good weather seems to create the increases/ even though people would think that good weathers would help create the increases.



Yes Andrew I feel the same about this part--out of nowhere the economist talks about the weather forecast. There are lots of CR questions that utilize discrepancy or surprising phenomenon, and most of the time I find the discrepancies/ phenomena interesting. This one is not my favorite.



Thank you avigutman. This technique is useful.

Thank you experts once again for your help.
Thank you for helping me learn.

KarishmaB

in (B)
What I understand is that you try to convey that construction doesn't increase during forecasted periods. Thus, the short supply of materials should not exist. Then, (B) doesn't support or is a reason.
Am I correct?

If I am wrong, pls help correct my logic.

Thank you in advance

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.