Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agr

Question

Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Carlton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings. The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.

Which one of the following principles, if established, would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted?

(A) When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety.

(B) When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted.

(C) If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the one adopted unless the necessary government funds have already been secured.

(D) No plan for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated.

(E) No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood’s safety should be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood prefer that proposal to a particular counterproposal.

AndreG · Accepted Answer

Puh,

I correctly chose B, but maybe that was because I read from E-->A ^^

I can see why many people chose A, to me it also seems close, but just not as strong as B is.

We are presented with two options/plans:
A) Demolish
B) Try an alternative approach

We are asked to pick a principle, if established, would help us with the decision.

I will start with B)
(B) When there are  two  proposals for solving a neighborhood problem  (check) , and only one of them would  preclude the possibility of trying the other  approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the  approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted .

These are key! Since demolishing will preclude trying the other approach, but trying to revive the buildings with government sponsored aid does not preclude to demolish the building in the end, if Plan B does not work, B is the perfect fit to our example!

(A) When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the  most housing for people who need it  should be the  one adopted unless  the  building  is  believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety.

I guess the tricky part here is, that this answer seems to say:
Choose most housing --> Plan B
BUT, if threat --> Do NOT choose Plan B

There are two ways to maybe interpret this: 
1) It basically tells you NOT to choose B, but that doees not automatically lead to plan A
2) Even if the building poses a threat to the neighbourhood, could option B not solve the "threat problem" as well? (we don't know...)

IMO A is close but B is simply more to the point of the example! As it is often the case in CR, stick AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to the given text/example!

Hope it helps - cheers,
André

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

(A) No. This does not address the conflicting proposals: demolition vs. rehabilitation.

(B) Yes.  Suppose the houses are destroyed first. Then it cannot be known whether rehabilitating the houses would have solved the problem. However, suppose the houses are rehabilitated first. Now, if rehabilitation fails to solve the problem, the houses can still be demolished. So rehabilitating the houses first does not preclude the possibility of destroying the houses later, whereas destroying the houses first does preclude the possibility of rehabilitating the houses later.

(C) No. We do not know whether either proposal requires government funding. Besides, only one of the two proposals advocated renovating the buildings, the other advocated destroying the buildings.

(D) No. This is the second-best choice. It is both too strong and too broad. The passage is about only two proposals: destruction and rehabilitation.

(E) No. The question asks which of two possible decisions is right, not which method should be taken to arrive at a decision.

gautrang · Answer

Thanks Andre, that's pretty good explanation from you, I think I understand now why A is not correct, just like you said, it provide us with option to choose B or not B but not to choose A.

However am I right in saying that (B) only suggest us to choose plan B?

Harsht7 · Answer

What I think here is as below, 
Option B says - when we have two options pick the one, that does not preclude the other option, first and if it is found unsatisfactory then pick the other option (that precludes the possibility of the other)
While the stem says that demolishing the houses(the option that precludes the possibility of other) is the first choice (because housing is a threat to the neighbourhood), This is opposite to what is mentioned in option B.

On the other hand, as per the stem, we picked one option(demolishing) over other (housing) cause the building was a threat to the neighbourhood. 
Option A says - when there are two options, pick the one(housing) over other(demolishing) until and unless the building is a threat to the neighbourhood. This is what we did.

So I chose A over B with this thinking. Can someone please explain where I went wrong?

Mizar18 · Answer

The key to solve this question is to deeply analize the question stem. Basically, you need a principle that would determine that demolishing was the right decision or that would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents should have been the right one.

(A) When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety.

This answer choice basically states that the demolishing option was the only correct choice, so the evaluation of the proposal by the opponets is irrelevant . -  Incorrect.

(B) When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted.

This one states that you should first try the option that does not foreclose the other possibility, so it is basically saying: if you do not solve it with the first method and this one is an incorrect approach, you can try to solve the problem with the second method.   -  Correct

(C) If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the one adopted unless the necessary government funds have already been secured.

Both options would have need government funding, so this one does not affect the argument.   Incorrect

(D) No plan for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated.

This one is close, but the issue is that it only mentions that this plan should not be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been throughly investigated. Does this one mention anything about the opponents plan? Not really  -  Incorrect

(E) No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood’s safety should be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood prefer that proposal to a particular counterproposal.

This one just talks about a consideration for choosing the demolition option.  -  Incorrect

unraveled · Answer

Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Carlton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings. The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.

Which one of the following principles, if established, would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted?

(A) When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety. - WRONG. It is already established that people in the neighbourhood believe that those houses are dangerous and pose safety issues. This choice takes a turn and focuses on different things.

(B) When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted. - CORRECT. Not sure how this is right but POE lets one to reach this. One approach lets the possibility of other and another doesn't. So, the one that doesn't seems to be the right approach based on the reasoning this choice makes.

(C) If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the one adopted unless the necessary government funds have already been secured. - WORNG. It's a conditional and depending on condition the approaches are either wrong or right.

(D) No plan for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated. - WRONG. Looks good but it makes a claim not gives reasons that lets us know which approach is right and which one is wrong.

(E) No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood’s safety should be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood prefer that proposal to a particular counterproposal. - WRONG. Okay, may be right way of doing things but it does not help in identifying which approach is right and which one is wrong.

Answer B.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agr

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

Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agr

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