Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
28 Mar 2016, 02:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
The safety codes governing the construction of public buildings are becoming far too strict. The surest way for architects and builders to prove that they have met the minimum requirements established by these codes is to construct buildings by using the same materials and methods that are currently allowed. By doing so means that there will be very little significant technological innovation within the industry, and hence the little evolution of architectural styles and design—merely because of the strictness of these safety codes.
The argument concludes that evolution of architectural styles is design merely because of the strictness of safety codes governing the construction of public buildings. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which argument can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on several unsubstantiated facts , hence the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
First,the argument assumes that safety codes for public buildings mean building industry as a whole. For examples :- if there are no safety codes for private buildings then builders are free to put there innovation skills in other industry as well. Therefore, the conclusion of the argument is flawed. The argument could have been more convincing if the author would have provided more detailed analysis of the contribution of building industry in public building.
Second, the argument claims that builders have to use the same materials and methods to meet minimum safety codes. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not provide correlation between safety codes and Materials to use by builders. for example:- if the safety codes have only minimum requirements of materials and if there is no upper limit then builders are free to use more alternatives and materials after using minimum materials to meet safety codes compliance. if the argument has provided more information on usage of materials then it would be easy to correlate materials and safety codes.
In conclusion, The argument is flawed for all above mentioned reasons and ,therefore, unconvincing. if the author had mentioned all necessary relations and facts like industry types, materials then the conlucsions would have been more convincing. Without this information , the argument remains unsubstantiated and remains open to debate
The argument concludes that evolution of architectural styles is design merely because of the strictness of safety codes governing the construction of public buildings. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which argument can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on several unsubstantiated facts , hence the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
First,the argument assumes that safety codes for public buildings mean building industry as a whole. For examples :- if there are no safety codes for private buildings then builders are free to put there innovation skills in other industry as well. Therefore, the conclusion of the argument is flawed. The argument could have been more convincing if the author would have provided more detailed analysis of the contribution of building industry in public building.
Second, the argument claims that builders have to use the same materials and methods to meet minimum safety codes. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not provide correlation between safety codes and Materials to use by builders. for example:- if the safety codes have only minimum requirements of materials and if there is no upper limit then builders are free to use more alternatives and materials after using minimum materials to meet safety codes compliance. if the argument has provided more information on usage of materials then it would be easy to correlate materials and safety codes.
In conclusion, The argument is flawed for all above mentioned reasons and ,therefore, unconvincing. if the author had mentioned all necessary relations and facts like industry types, materials then the conlucsions would have been more convincing. Without this information , the argument remains unsubstantiated and remains open to debate
Moderators:
188 posts
