The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Feb 2017, 23:21

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 36
Location: India
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 12

The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2012, 06:24
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (02:28) correct 31% (01:38) wrong based on 214 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restrictions; but that is just a move to get some free publicity for his reelection campaign. So far this year we have had 3.5 inches of rain, slightly more than the average amount of rain for the same period over the last three years.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion of the argument above?

A. The governor did not declare drought emergencies in the previous three years.

B. City officials who have the authority to mandate water-use restrictions have not done so.

C. The snow melt that usually contributes significantly to the state's reservoirs is several inches below normal.

D. The amount of water the state can draw from rivers that cross state boundaries is limited by federal law.

E. Water-use restrictions are short-term measures and do little to reduce long-term water consumption.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 88
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 4

Re: Governor claims , new water-use restrictions [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2012, 06:50
vmdce129907 wrote:
The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restrictions; but that is just a move to get some free publicity for his reelection campaign. So far this year we have had 3.5 inches of rain, slightly more than the average amount of rain for the same period over the last three years.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion of the argument above?

A. The governor did not declare drought emergencies in the previous three years.

B. City officials who have the authority to mandate water-use restrictions have not done so.

C. The snow melt that usually contributes significantly to the state's reservoirs is several inches below normal.

D. The amount of water the state can draw from rivers that cross state boundaries is limited by federal law.

E. Water-use restrictions are short-term measures and do little to reduce long-term water consumption.

I used elimination to reach the answer in this case.

A is a general statement and is neutral so eliminated

B mentions city officials, which is out of scope..argument has nothing to do with view point of city offcials. Eliminated

D same as B, no mention of federal law, moreover, this is a general statement so is not affecting the argument, must be true for all years.

E strengthens the argument instead of weakening it

Hence C must be the answer
Manager
Status: Fighting again to Kill the GMAT devil
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 137
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: Oil and Gas - Engineering & Construction
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 48

Re: Governor claims , new water-use restrictions [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2012, 20:13

I used elimination to reach the answer in this case.

A is a general statement and is neutral so eliminated

B mentions city officials, which is out of scope..argument has nothing to do with view point of city offcials. Eliminated

D same as B, no mention of federal law, moreover, this is a general statement so is not affecting the argument, must be true for all years.

E strengthens the argument instead of weakening it

Hence C must be the answer

I think C strengthens the Conclusion rather than weakening it.

The conclusion is in the First line of the argument - "The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restrictions"

Counter premise in the argument says that rainfall this year had been little more than the average of what it had been in 3 previous years.

Hence The reasoning of the argument is the Claim made by Governor is false as there has been more rain this year.

In Order to weaken this reasoning that governor's claim is false, we have to prove that either this year has been more Rains Or anything related to previous years drought.

(C) in this essence strengthens the argument, by claiming that Snow melting has been less so Water is less hence governor's claim is justified.

I think (A) should be the correct response while Weakening the Governor's Claim because If the Governor did not declare drought in previous 3 years when the average rainfall had been less than what has occurred this year, then there is no point in the claim of Drought by the governor that this year be declared a Drought.
_________________

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

Manager
Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Posts: 104
Location: United States
GMAT Date: 10-22-2012
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 47

Re: Governor claims , new water-use restrictions [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2012, 23:08
methevoid wrote:

I used elimination to reach the answer in this case.

A is a general statement and is neutral so eliminated

B mentions city officials, which is out of scope..argument has nothing to do with view point of city offcials. Eliminated

D same as B, no mention of federal law, moreover, this is a general statement so is not affecting the argument, must be true for all years.

E strengthens the argument instead of weakening it

Hence C must be the answer

I think C strengthens the Conclusion rather than weakening it.

The conclusion is in the First line of the argument - "The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restrictions"

Counter premise in the argument says that rainfall this year had been little more than the average of what it had been in 3 previous years.

Hence The reasoning of the argument is the Claim made by Governor is false as there has been more rain this year.

In Order to weaken this reasoning that governor's claim is false, we have to prove that either this year has been more Rains Or anything related to previous years drought.

(C) in this essence strengthens the argument, by claiming that Snow melting has been less so Water is less hence governor's claim is justified.

I think (A) should be the correct response while Weakening the Governor's Claim because If the Governor did not declare drought in previous 3 years when the average rainfall had been less than what has occurred this year, then there is no point in the claim of Drought by the governor that this year be declared a Drought.

I agree that A should be the answer since A gives u an insight into the last three years water level when the DROUGHT ws not declared even though the average was slightly lesser than than this year's.
if it was not declared in the last three years then why is it being declared this year?
That is why i feel that A weakens the claim.
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 174
Concentration: Technology, Other
Schools: Haas
GMAT Date: 01-14-2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 41

Re: Governor claims , new water-use restrictions [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2014, 09:16
methevoid wrote:

I used elimination to reach the answer in this case.

A is a general statement and is neutral so eliminated

B mentions city officials, which is out of scope..argument has nothing to do with view point of city offcials. Eliminated

D same as B, no mention of federal law, moreover, this is a general statement so is not affecting the argument, must be true for all years.

E strengthens the argument instead of weakening it

Hence C must be the answer

I think C strengthens the Conclusion rather than weakening it.

The conclusion is in the First line of the argument - "The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restrictions"

Counter premise in the argument says that rainfall this year had been little more than the average of what it had been in 3 previous years.

Hence The reasoning of the argument is the Claim made by Governor is false as there has been more rain this year.

In Order to weaken this reasoning that governor's claim is false, we have to prove that either this year has been more Rains Or anything related to previous years drought.

(C) in this essence strengthens the argument, by claiming that Snow melting has been less so Water is less hence governor's claim is justified.

I think (A) should be the correct response while Weakening the Governor's Claim because If the Governor did not declare drought in previous 3 years when the average rainfall had been less than what has occurred this year, then there is no point in the claim of Drought by the governor that this year be declared a Drought.

Even i thought A was the answer on first glance but then realized C was the answer . Here is my reasoning for the same

Conclusion : Governor says state has drought but his claims are false . Reasoning for his claims to be false are there has been more rainfall than normal past few months .

We need to weaken the conclusion ? So we need to say Governor claims of drought are true ? How can this be possible if there is more rainfall than normal , may be a more rainfall could not account for a deficit of water ( less snowfall in this case ) . Less snow fall would indeed weaken the conclusion saying the claim of the governor regarding drought is false .

Hope this helps
SVP
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2325
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q39 V27
GMAT 3: 560 Q43 V24
GMAT 4: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 145

Re: The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2015, 12:11
No guys, the conclusion is not that. The conclusion is that there is no drought and governor is promoting himself.

which of the answer choices best refutes the conclusion? The one that would convince us that there is indeed drought. Choice C correctly states that although the rain increased relatively to the last 3 years, the melted snow, which is a significant contributor to state's reservoirs, is below the norm.
Re: The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has   [#permalink] 31 Oct 2015, 12:11
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state s 10 14 Dec 2010, 13:16
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state s 8 21 Jul 2009, 02:10
8 While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state s 10 27 Mar 2009, 03:04
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state s 5 19 Jun 2007, 17:31
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state s 2 18 Mar 2007, 16:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by