Last visit was: 14 Sep 2024, 06:39 It is currently 14 Sep 2024, 06:39
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn thi

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Retired Moderator
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Status:Flying over the cloud!
Posts: 376
Own Kudos [?]: 1578 [14]
Given Kudos: 44
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 504
Own Kudos [?]: 645 [0]
Given Kudos: 61
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4914
Own Kudos [?]: 7914 [1]
Given Kudos: 221
Location: India
Intern
Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [0]
Given Kudos: 74
Re: The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn thi [#permalink]
No one could have been anywhere in the vicinity of a fire like that one and fail to notice it. Thomas must have seen it,

it means : Thomas was in the vicinity of the fire this morning

what is wrong with A?
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 171
Own Kudos [?]: 69 [1]
Given Kudos: 9
WE:Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn thi [#permalink]
1
Kudos
I feel there is a catch. Fire started before the dawn in the morning .In the premise it is not stated that whether he went to the library before the fire started or not.it is just stated he went to the library in the morning(may be 12:01AM) . If he went to the library before the fire started he could not have seen the fire or it may be the other way also.I feel C is wrong
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 7056
Own Kudos [?]: 65098 [4]
Given Kudos: 1835
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn thi [#permalink]
2
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Quote:
The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn this morning, and the last fire fighters did not leave until late this afternoon. No one could have been anywhere in the vicinity of a fire like that one and fail to notice it. Thomas must have seen it, whatever he now says to the contrary. He admits that, as usual, he went from his apartment to the library this morning, and there is no way for him to get from his apartment to the library without going past the Municipal Building.

The main conclusion of the argument is that
(A) Thomas was in the vicinity of the fire this morning
(B) Thomas claimed not to have seen the fire
(C) Thomas saw the fire this morning
(D) Thomas went directly from his apartment to the library this morning
(E) Thomas went by the Municipal Building this morning
pkm9995109794
I feel there is a catch. Fire started before the dawn in the morning .In the premise it is not stated that whether he went to the library before the fire started or not.it is just stated he went to the library in the morning(may be 12:01AM) . If he went to the library before the fire started he could not have seen the fire or it may be the other way also.I feel C is wrong
Yes, this is technically possible, but since we are not asked about assumptions or ways to weaken the argument, this scenario is irrelevant. We are not looking for flaws in the author's argument. Rather, we are simply looking for the author's conclusion. According to the author's reasoning, Thomas saw the fire this morning, so the answer is (C).

soodia
what is wrong with A?
As for choice (A), the author does reason that Thomas was in the vicinity of the fire this morning. But the author uses that reasoning to SUPPORT the main conclusion, which is that Thomas saw the fire. Thomas admits to walking past the Municipal Building but claims that he did not see the fire. The author concludes that Thomas DID see the fire. Whether Thomas was in the vicinity of the fire is not in question.
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1236
Own Kudos [?]: 215 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Re: The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn thi [#permalink]
GMATNinja
Quote:
The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn this morning, and the last fire fighters did not leave until late this afternoon. No one could have been anywhere in the vicinity of a fire like that one and fail to notice it. Thomas must have seen it, whatever he now says to the contrary. He admits that, as usual, he went from his apartment to the library this morning, and there is no way for him to get from his apartment to the library without going past the Municipal Building.

The main conclusion of the argument is that
(A) Thomas was in the vicinity of the fire this morning
(B) Thomas claimed not to have seen the fire
(C) Thomas saw the fire this morning
(D) Thomas went directly from his apartment to the library this morning
(E) Thomas went by the Municipal Building this morning
pkm9995109794
I feel there is a catch. Fire started before the dawn in the morning .In the premise it is not stated that whether he went to the library before the fire started or not.it is just stated he went to the library in the morning(may be 12:01AM) . If he went to the library before the fire started he could not have seen the fire or it may be the other way also.I feel C is wrong
Yes, this is technically possible, but since we are not asked about assumptions or ways to weaken the argument, this scenario is irrelevant. We are not looking for flaws in the author's argument. Rather, we are simply looking for the author's conclusion. According to the author's reasoning, Thomas saw the fire this morning, so the answer is (C).

soodia
what is wrong with A?
As for choice (A), the author does reason that Thomas was in the vicinity of the fire this morning. But the author uses that reasoning to SUPPORT the main conclusion, which is that Thomas saw the fire. Thomas admits to walking past the Municipal Building but claims that he did not see the fire. The author concludes that Thomas DID see the fire. Whether Thomas was in the vicinity of the fire is not in question.

I am wondering here if there is anything inherently different about "find the conclusion" questions on the GMAT versus LSAT, and frankly, any question type for that matter that shows up on both.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 7056
Own Kudos [?]: 65098 [0]
Given Kudos: 1835
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn thi [#permalink]
CEdward
GMATNinja
Quote:
The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn this morning, and the last fire fighters did not leave until late this afternoon. No one could have been anywhere in the vicinity of a fire like that one and fail to notice it. Thomas must have seen it, whatever he now says to the contrary. He admits that, as usual, he went from his apartment to the library this morning, and there is no way for him to get from his apartment to the library without going past the Municipal Building.

The main conclusion of the argument is that
(A) Thomas was in the vicinity of the fire this morning
(B) Thomas claimed not to have seen the fire
(C) Thomas saw the fire this morning
(D) Thomas went directly from his apartment to the library this morning
(E) Thomas went by the Municipal Building this morning
pkm9995109794
I feel there is a catch. Fire started before the dawn in the morning .In the premise it is not stated that whether he went to the library before the fire started or not.it is just stated he went to the library in the morning(may be 12:01AM) . If he went to the library before the fire started he could not have seen the fire or it may be the other way also.I feel C is wrong
Yes, this is technically possible, but since we are not asked about assumptions or ways to weaken the argument, this scenario is irrelevant. We are not looking for flaws in the author's argument. Rather, we are simply looking for the author's conclusion. According to the author's reasoning, Thomas saw the fire this morning, so the answer is (C).

soodia
what is wrong with A?
As for choice (A), the author does reason that Thomas was in the vicinity of the fire this morning. But the author uses that reasoning to SUPPORT the main conclusion, which is that Thomas saw the fire. Thomas admits to walking past the Municipal Building but claims that he did not see the fire. The author concludes that Thomas DID see the fire. Whether Thomas was in the vicinity of the fire is not in question.

I am wondering here if there is anything inherently different about "find the conclusion" questions on the GMAT versus LSAT, and frankly, any question type for that matter that shows up on both.
Generally speaking, LSAT questions are a really, really good resource when you're studying for GMAT CR and RC. There are certainly some differences, but those are mostly cosmetic. For "find the conclusion" questions specifically, there is virtually no difference between LSAT and GMAT questions (except that LSAT passages are, on average, slightly more wordy and difficult).

For more about using LSAT questions for your GMAT studies, check out this article. You'll find some info about the differences between LAT and GMAT questions under "Reason #3."

I hope that helps!
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2020
Posts: 383
Own Kudos [?]: 42 [0]
Given Kudos: 433
Location: India
Re: The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn thi [#permalink]
KarishmaB Ma'am,
What is wrong with option B?
The passage mentions that
Quote:
Thomas must have seen it, whatever he now says to the contrary.
.

So can't we conclude that Thomas must have seen the fire.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15302
Own Kudos [?]: 68054 [2]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: Pune, India
Re: The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn thi [#permalink]
2
Kudos
krndatta
KarishmaB Ma'am,
What is wrong with option B?
The passage mentions that
Quote:
Thomas must have seen it, whatever he now says to the contrary.
.

So can't we conclude that Thomas must have seen the fire.

Option (B) is a fact given in the argument. The highlighted above tells us that he claims to have not seen it.
But this is not the conclusion of the argument. The author did not write the argument to conclude that Thomas claims to have not seen the fire. He writes the argument to convince us that Thomas must have seen the fire. He gives all data to show why he must have seen it (He admits to have gone from apartment to library. There is no way to go without crossing the municipal building. The fire started before dawn and was extinguished by later afternoon. No one could have been in the vicinity and not noticed it.)
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17749
Own Kudos [?]: 878 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn thi [#permalink]
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.
Re: The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn thi [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7056 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts