The ancient Romans understood the principles of water power very well

Question

The ancient Romans understood the principles of water power very well and in some outlying parts of their empire they made extensive and excellent use of water as an energy sources. This makes it all the more striking that the Romans made do without water power in regions dominated by large cities.

Which one of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of the difference described above in the Romans’ use of water power?

(A) The ancient Romans were adept at constructing and maintaining aqueducts that could carry quantities of water sufficient to supply large cities over considerable distances.

(B) In the areas in which water power was not used water flow in rivers and streams was substantial throughout the year but nevertheless exhibited some seasonal variation.

(C) Water power was relatively vulnerable to sabotage but any damage could be quickly and inexpensively repaired.

(D) In most areas to which the use of water power was not extended other more traditional sources of energy continued to be used.

(E) In heavily populated areas the introduction of water power would have been certain to cause social unrest by depriving large numbers of people of their livelihood.

globaldesi · Answer

E seems to explain why water power was not introduced in large cities because then it could have deprived people of the job opporunities

GMATWhizTeam · Answer

IDENTIFYING THE PARADOX 
The Romans were adept in their understanding and utilization of the principles of waterpower. 
Evidence : In the outer areas of their empire they made a lot of good use of water as an energy source.

The line of reasoning here is : Given the knowledge the Romans had and the extensive use they made of that knowledge in the outlying areas, it is surprising they did not utilize the same knowledge to harness waterpower in regions dominated by large cities where the necessity to do so might be expected to be higher than in the outlying areas. This is the paradox we need to resolve.

RESOLVING THE PARADOX 
 Second line of reasoning

1. It is possible that the regions dominated by the city did not have the water resources at hand that were required for making use of waterpower.
2. It is possible that the use of waterpower in the regions dominated by the cities was expected to have some negative impact on these cities and hence the Romans did not use waterpower in such regions.
3. It is possible that the use of waterpower was significantly less economical in the cities than the use of other sources of power and hence the Romans did not use it in the cities.

ANSWER CHOICE ELIMINATION
 
A. The ancient Romans were adept at constructing and maintaining aqueducts that could carry quantities of water sufficient to supply large cities over considerable distances.
(This choice tells us that water could be supplied to the cities over large distances. However, this choice does not explain why the Romans did not use waterpower in the cities even after they could get the water to the cities. The paradox is not about water supply but use of water as an energy source. This choice is therefore, out of scope.
 Incorrect Choice )

B. In the areas in which water power was not used water flow in rivers and streams was substantial throughout the year but nevertheless exhibited some seasonal variation.
(This choice tells us that it was possible for the Romans to harness waterpower in the cities and yet they did not do so. This choice increases the discrepancy and is the opposite of the required answer choice.
 Incorrect Choice )

C. Water power was relatively vulnerable to sabotage but any damage could be quickly and inexpensively repaired.
(This choice has nothing to do with usage of water power and is totally irrelevant.
 Incorrect Choice)

D. In most areas to which the use of water power was not extended other more traditional sources of energy continued to be used.
(This choice tells us what was done in the scenario when water power was not used in the cities. It does not explain why the water power was not used in the first place. This choice is out of scope.
 Incorrect Choice )

E. In heavily populated areas the introduction of water power would have been certain to cause social unrest by depriving large numbers of people of their livelihood.
(This choice is in line with explanation 2 given in our second line of reasoning.
The regions dominated by large cities can be expected to be heavily populated. The use of water power causing unemployment serves as a good reason to not use water power in such areas.
 Correct choice)

Krishnahelps · Answer

GMATWhizTeam , I am not quite convinced with the reasoning for option A. Can you please elucidate?

MBAB123 · Answer

ankitapugalia , if anything, A increases the paradox. A tells you that ancient had the skill to maintain sufficient water supply in large cities. They had enough water supply or at least the skill to maintain it, so why didn't they use it as an energy source? This question is left unanswered.

nikitathegreat · Answer

Pls explain ans choice B. Cant it be possible that since water flow in river and streams was substantial in large cities and hence Romans didnt use water power in those cities.

(B) In the areas in which water power was not used water flow in rivers and streams was substantial throughout the year but nevertheless exhibited some seasonal variation.

GMATNinja  @VeritasKarishma

unraveled · Answer

The ancient Romans understood the principles of water power very well and in some outlying parts of their empire they made extensive and excellent use of water as an energy sources. This makes it all the more striking that the Romans made do without water power in regions dominated by large cities.

Which one of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of the difference described above in the Romans’ use of water power?

(A) The ancient Romans were adept at constructing and maintaining aqueducts that could carry quantities of water sufficient to supply large cities over considerable distances. - WRONG. It just lets us know that Romans had prowess but doesn't resolves why the difference. If anything it only adds to paradox to remain so as is inferred from this choice.

(B) In the areas in which water power was not used water flow in rivers and streams was substantial throughout the year but nevertheless exhibited some seasonal variation. - WRONG. It does the same job as A does but only with slight lesser degree in intensity. Assuming things leads to either of the direction - resolving or not resolving. Thus, not a good candidate.

(C) Water power was relatively vulnerable to sabotage but any damage could be quickly and inexpensively repaired. - WRONG. Irrelevant. What then?

(D) In most areas to which the use of water power was not extended other more traditional sources of energy continued to be used. - WRONG. Irrelevant. What then?

(E) In heavily populated areas the introduction of water power would have been certain to cause social unrest by depriving large numbers of people of their livelihood. - CORRECT. Possibly a good reason for Romans to not utilise their skills. This prevented more troubles that could have lead to unrest.

What may have lead Romans not using their expertise that they use in one place and don't in other.

A and B are confusing things but E resolves.

Answer E.

GMATNinja · Answer

The correct answer should account for the fact that the Romans didn't use water power in regions dominated by large cities, despite the fact that they made "excellent use" of it in other areas.

Let's now consider (B):

How does this relate to this situation? Well, it's hard to say. Does substantial water flow mean it's a good source of power? Or is too much flow a bad thing? And how much seasonal variation in flow is acceptable? Is "some" seasonal variation a bad thing? Or does the variation need to be really big to have an effect?

While these are interesting questions, the passage doesn't give us any information on which to answer them. For that reason, we can't say really say how (B) affects the passage, and we can discard it.

I hope that helps!

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

The ancient Romans understood the principles of water power very well

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

The ancient Romans understood the principles of water power very well

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