GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 17 Feb 2019, 00:02

### 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

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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Algebra Webinar

February 17, 2019

February 17, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Attend this Free Algebra Webinar and learn how to master Inequalities and Absolute Value problems on GMAT.
• ### Valentine's day SALE is on! 25% off.

February 18, 2019

February 18, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

We don’t care what your relationship status this year - we love you just the way you are. AND we want you to crush the GMAT!

# Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 10 May 2010
Posts: 807

### Show Tags

Updated on: 10 May 2018, 08:12
4
18
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (01:39) correct 36% (01:54) wrong based on 1273 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land, contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

(A) This year several housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.

(B) The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years.

(C) The population of City X is projected to grow by 4% this year, compared with only 3% for last year.

(D) The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year.

(E) Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, have remained steady over the past year.

As per Powerscore CR - Flaw in the reasoning should not bring outside information in choices, which this question does.
This question is more like weakening question.

_________________

The question is not can you rise up to iconic! The real question is will you ?

Originally posted by AbhiJ on 23 Sep 2012, 10:54.
Last edited by hazelnut on 10 May 2018, 08:12, edited 3 times in total.
SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2279
Location: New York, NY
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2012, 08:05
4
2
If the question were "weaken", then C would be a possible answer.

"C" is a conclusion that directly contradicts the conclusion reached in the passage. The passage concludes that fewer new residents moved to City X than previously. (C) says that more new residents are coming in.

A flaw in the reasoning can bring outside information if it helps explain the conclusion in a different way.
The passage says that because of poor jobs, fewer residents coming to the city.

(A) is saying okay, we have poor jobs but that's changing because a bunch of new projects just got onto the market that were "frozen" by legal red tape. Now they are open and job situation should improve. This reasoning would lead to a different conclusion and would reveal the "flaw" in the prior reasoning.

(C) doesn't really help us deal with the reasoning. It simply jumps to the conclusion and provides a conclusion that contradicts the one from the passage. Even so, population growth might not be directly comparable to "# of residents" coming to city X since population growth can either be INTERNAL or EXTERNAL.

The population might grow from within the city if everybody decides to have a lot of kids. Or it can be external with residents coming in from elsewhere. (C) doesn't fully capture just EXTERNAL which is what the reasoning from the passage is focused on.
##### General Discussion
Manager
Status: Fighting again to Kill the GMAT devil
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 107
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: Oil and Gas - Engineering & Construction
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2012, 08:02
2
Hi AbhiJ,

I donot think that there is any new info as such, utilized by correct answer.

The way I see the problem -
Premise 1 - residential developers have stopped buying land,
Premise 2 - contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs.

Both these premises are giving hints that - new housing developments are not happening across the city.

Correct Answer, if true thus suggests that since there are many new housing projects coming up, the Reasoning concluded is false and hence the premises are contradictory.

Thus if correct answer is true there are housing developments happening in the city and thus the reasoning concluded that - "There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously." is False.

i do not see any new info in correct answer, in fact by contradicting the Premise it makes the flaw in reasoning very much visible.
_________________

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

Retired Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 566
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2012, 09:43
1
1
This argument relate to number and statistic. I agree with gmatpill that, if the question is "Weaken", the answer choice will be C.
However, the question is "flaw". Choice A take this job better. Choice A clearly shows that because the lands were hold up because of one policy. So, the construction developers did not buy lands any more. Instead, they'll wait for the expire date of above policy.

Choice C makes a trap that the decrease in percentage will cause the decrease in number.
_________________
Senior Manager
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 431
Location: United States (NY)
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2012, 09:41
in (A) " several " is mentioned, but in premise it's talking about the overall condition; how can several can refer to the general/overall situation?
_________________

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

Intern
Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 33
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GPA: 3.28
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2014, 08:51
tuanquang269 wrote:
This argument relate to number and statistic. I agree with gmatpill that, if the question is "Weaken", the answer choice will be C.
However, the question is "flaw". Choice A take this job better. Choice A clearly shows that because the lands were hold up because of one policy. So, the construction developers did not buy lands any more. Instead, they'll wait for the expire date of above policy.

Choice C makes a trap that the decrease in percentage will cause the decrease in number.

Dear tuanquang269 and GMATPill,
Please refer to the official explanation by Manhattan experts. The boldface seems to contradict what you thought of the answer C which can be true if the question is "weaken". For me, it is so vague to differentiate between "flaw" question and "weaken" question!

The conclusion of the argument is that "there must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously." Why? The author observes several factors (e.g., developers not buying land, contractors without work, electricians working predominately on existing homes) and then assumes that fewer new homes are being built specifically because fewer new residents are moving to this city. We are asked to weaken this conclusion; one way to do so would be to find an alternate explanation for the observation that fewer new homes are being built right now.

(A) CORRECT. This suggests that there might be another reason for the decline in home construction: the supply of available housing has been increased through the release of a glut of previously built homes.

(B) The size of homes, by itself, does not address the reason(s) fewer homes are being built right now in City X.

(C) The author's conclusion is specifically that “fewer new residents” are moving to City X. The cited population increase might have been due to babies born to existing residents this year. Though this choice is tempting, we cannot conclude that it means more new residents are moving into the city.

(D) If materials cost less, it seems more likely that any decrease in new home construction could be attributed to the stated causes.

(E) The sales level of cars and boats does not address the reason(s) fewer homes are being built right now in City X.
Intern
Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 33
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GPA: 3.28
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2014, 08:57
tuanquang269 wrote:
This argument relate to number and statistic. I agree with gmatpill that, if the question is "Weaken", the answer choice will be C.
However, the question is "flaw". Choice A take this job better. Choice A clearly shows that because the lands were hold up because of one policy. So, the construction developers did not buy lands any more. Instead, they'll wait for the expire date of above policy.

Choice C makes a trap that the decrease in percentage will cause the decrease in number.

Dear tuanquang269 and GMATPill,
Please refer to the official explanation by Manhattan experts. The boldface seems to contradict what you thought of the answer C which can be true if the question is "weaken". For me, it is so vague to differentiate between "flaw" question and "weaken" question!

The conclusion of the argument is that "there must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously." Why? The author observes several factors (e.g., developers not buying land, contractors without work, electricians working predominately on existing homes) and then assumes that fewer new homes are being built specifically because fewer new residents are moving to this city. We are asked to weaken this conclusion; one way to do so would be to find an alternate explanation for the observation that fewer new homes are being built right now.

(A) CORRECT. This suggests that there might be another reason for the decline in home construction: the supply of available housing has been increased through the release of a glut of previously built homes.

(B) The size of homes, by itself, does not address the reason(s) fewer homes are being built right now in City X.

(C) The author's conclusion is specifically that “fewer new residents” are moving to City X. The cited population increase might have been due to babies born to existing residents this year. Though this choice is tempting, we cannot conclude that it means more new residents are moving into the city.

(D) If materials cost less, it seems more likely that any decrease in new home construction could be attributed to the stated causes.

(E) The sales level of cars and boats does not address the reason(s) fewer homes are being built right now in City X.

By the way, for me, I chose B as the answer. B suggests that one bigger house can accommodate more people; therefore, it shows a reasoning flaw or weaken the conclusion (whatever if it's true) that "There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously."

Please show me what's wrong with my thought. Thank you so much!
Intern
Joined: 22 Mar 2015
Posts: 31
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2016, 06:54
AbhiJ wrote:
Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land, contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

This year several housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years.
The population of City X is projected to grow by 4% this year, compared with only 3% for last year.
The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year.
Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, have remained steady over the past year.

As per Powerscore CR - Flaw in the reasoning should not bring outside information in choices, which this question does.
This question is more like weakening question.

Based upon the context of choice A, I thought "housing developments" means "house developers".

Had option A included "houses" or "residencies" or "homes" instead of "Housing developments", I would have definitely preferred A over B. These are the moments when your months and months of practice goes into waste.

The only reason: Being a non native speaker
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 345
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2016, 07:07
Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land, contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

1> May be more residents are moving out so space (and everything that comes with it) is available for residents who are moving in.

Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

This year several housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2016
Posts: 60
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V36
GRE 1: Q166 V147
GPA: 3.3
WE: Other (Consulting)
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2017, 02:42
AbhiJ wrote:
Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land, contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

This year several housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years.
The population of City X is projected to grow by 4% this year, compared with only 3% for last year.
The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year.
Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, have remained steady over the past year.

As per Powerscore CR - Flaw in the reasoning should not bring outside information in choices, which this question does.
This question is more like weakening question.

Here the Para is saying that there is decrease in land buying...blah blah.. something..
On Basis of this, author concluded that there will be fewer new residents to city X.

My pre thinking. Ok, there are no new projects. But, there might be many (already) completed projects (which are vacant for new residents)
Option A: This is in same lines with my prethinking. After being held up for several months, Already completed projects came to the market

Please let me know if my understanding is not correct
_________________

23 Kudos left to unlock next level. Help me by Contributing one for cause .. Please

My failed GMAT experience ... https://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-bad-experience-640-need-suggestions-on-verbal-improvement-251308.html

My review on EmpowerGMAT : https://gmatclub.com/reviews/comments/empowergmat-online-course-345355767

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 366
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2017, 03:28
Bharath99 wrote:
AbhiJ wrote:
Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land, contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

This year several housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years.
The population of City X is projected to grow by 4% this year, compared with only 3% for last year.
The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year.
Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, have remained steady over the past year.

As per Powerscore CR - Flaw in the reasoning should not bring outside information in choices, which this question does.
This question is more like weakening question.

Here the Para is saying that there is decrease in land buying...blah blah.. something..
On Basis of this, author concluded that there will be fewer new residents to city X.

My pre thinking. Ok, there are no new projects. But, there might be many (already) completed projects (which are vacant for new residents)
Option A: This is in same lines with my prethinking. After being held up for several months, Already completed projects came to the market

Please let me know if my understanding is not correct

Just make sure, you are also proving that the remaining 4 options are Incorrect. This is to ensure you do not fall into a trap answer, especially on 700+ questions.
Pre-thinking will get you through most of the questions, but sometimes, what you think isn't present in any of the answer choices, so my 2 cents would be to also practice rejecting other answer choices on solid reasoning.

Best of Luck mate!
_________________

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

Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 588
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2018, 05:52
DmitryFarber chetan2u

Though I chose A by prethinking I still could not eliminate B on a solid ground.

My reasoning to eliminate B -
We do not the extent of the increase in size. I mean the increment could be in anything but more availability of rooms?

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 08 Oct 2018
Posts: 41
Location: Russian Federation
GMAT 1: 650 Q35 V44
GPA: 3.8
WE: Consulting (Education)
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2018, 10:55
1
I think B is wrong because it is out of scope in terms of time. The question talks about "Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land etc. etc." However, B talks about a much longer period of time ("The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years") and therefore can't account for the recent changes.

Notice that A has the correct time scope: "This year several housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape."
Re: Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land,   [#permalink] 18 Oct 2018, 10:55
Display posts from previous: Sort by