|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
07 Aug 2024, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
66% (02:23) correct
34%
(02:33)
wrong
based on 230
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The strength of a suspension bridge rests in part on how deep the towers are anchored into the ground. During the first wave of suspension bridge construction, consistent with best-practices at the time, regulations required engineers to drill holes for the towers such that the portion of the tower below ground accounted for at least half of the height of the tower. After conducting an inspection into the depth of the holes drilled for the towers of the Watergate Bridge, constructed over 50 years ago during the first wave of suspension bridge construction, regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage.
Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
A) In light of current architectural theory, the Watergate Bridge should be closed until reinforcements can be added.
B) The original regulations for the depth of the suspension tower failed to anticipate future changes in demand or architectural theory.
C) Even with the implementation of the reinforcements advocated by the new architectural norms, the bridge will still not be safe.
D) In light of the regulators’ findings, every suspension bridge built during the first wave of construction must be updated to provide additional strength and carrying capacity.
E) The action advocated by current architectural theory should not be undertaken since there is no evidence to guarantee that the reinforcements will be adequate or advisable in light of future architectural research.
Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
A) In light of current architectural theory, the Watergate Bridge should be closed until reinforcements can be added.
B) The original regulations for the depth of the suspension tower failed to anticipate future changes in demand or architectural theory.
C) Even with the implementation of the reinforcements advocated by the new architectural norms, the bridge will still not be safe.
D) In light of the regulators’ findings, every suspension bridge built during the first wave of construction must be updated to provide additional strength and carrying capacity.
E) The action advocated by current architectural theory should not be undertaken since there is no evidence to guarantee that the reinforcements will be adequate or advisable in light of future architectural research.
07 Aug 2024, 20:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
To solve this question, let us deploy IMS's four-step technique.
STEP #1 -> IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
Let us read the question stem to identify the question type.
STEP #2 -> X-RAY THE PASSAGE
In an inference question, it is a must to x-ray the passage and understand it. Let us now read the passage and note the facts as we read.
FACT #2: During the first wave of suspension bridge construction, consistent with best-practices at the time, regulations required engineers to drill holes for the towers such that the portion of the tower below ground accounted for at least half of the height of the tower.
FACT #3: After conducting an inspection into the depth of the holes drilled for the towers of the Watergate Bridge, constructed over 50 years ago during the first wave of suspension bridge construction, regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage.
STEP #3 -> FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER
To frame a shadow answer, we must know what the correct answer should do. In this question, the correct answer must be 100 percent substantiated by the facts mentioned in the passage.
SHADOW ANSWER: Any situation that is fully validated by the facts in the passage.
STEP #4 -> ELIMINATE INCORRECT OPTIONS
Options that do not match the shadow answer can be eliminated.
A) In light of current architectural theory, the Watergate Bridge should be closed until reinforcements can be added. | NOT A MATCH | The portion "the Watergate Bridge should be closed" makes this option too extreme. While FACT #3 does mention that updated architectural norms and theory as noted by the regulators advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage, we do not know if it is necessary for the bridge to be closed to be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage. It may or may not need to be closed, meaning nothing in the passage indicates that it should be, and remember, we are looking for an option that is fully validated by the facts in the passage. | ELIMINATE
B) The original regulations for the depth of the suspension tower failed to anticipate future changes in demand or architectural theory. | MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER | Now, let us ask ourselves a few questions. What information do we have about original regulations for the depth of the suspension tower? FACT #1 states that the regulations required engineers to drill holes for the towers such that the portion of the tower below ground accounted for at least half of the height of the tower during the first wave of suspension bridge construction. FACT #3, however, states that after conducting an inspection into the depth of the holes drilled for the towers of the Watergate Bridge (which was actually constructed during the first wave of suspension bridge construction), regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage. Can we therefore infer that the original regulations failed to anticipate future changes in demand or architectural theory? Yes, because if they did not fail to do so, the advise that the bridge's towers be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage would not exist. | KEEP
C) Even with the implementation of the reinforcements advocated by the new architectural norms, the bridge will still not be safe. | NOT A MATCH | We have nothing in the passage that indicates what the outcome of the implementation of the reinforcements will be. | ELIMINATE
D) In light of the regulators’ findings, every suspension bridge built during the first wave of construction must be updated to provide additional strength and carrying capacity. | NOT A MATCH | Watergate Bridge is the only suspension bridge built during the first wave of construction discussed in the passage. No fact in the passage tells us anything about every suspension bridge that was built during the first wave of construction. This option can therefore be safely eliminated. | ELIMINATE
E) The action advocated by current architectural theory should not be undertaken since there is no evidence to guarantee that the reinforcements will be adequate or advisable in light of future architectural research. | NOT A MATCH | First and foremost, the portion "action advocated by current architectural theory should not be undertaken" is too extreme and not substantiated by any fact in the passage; second, none of the facts indicate that there is no evidence to guarantee that the reinforcements will be adequate or advisable in light of future architectural research. This option is absolutely beyond the scope of the passage. We can therefore safely eliminate it. | ELIMINATE
Hence, (B) has to be the correct answer.
STEP #1 -> IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
Let us read the question stem to identify the question type.
Quote:
The stem indicates an inference question.
STEP #2 -> X-RAY THE PASSAGE
In an inference question, it is a must to x-ray the passage and understand it. Let us now read the passage and note the facts as we read.
Quote:
FACT #1: The strength of a suspension bridge rests in part on how deep the towers are anchored into the ground.
FACT #2: During the first wave of suspension bridge construction, consistent with best-practices at the time, regulations required engineers to drill holes for the towers such that the portion of the tower below ground accounted for at least half of the height of the tower.
FACT #3: After conducting an inspection into the depth of the holes drilled for the towers of the Watergate Bridge, constructed over 50 years ago during the first wave of suspension bridge construction, regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage.
STEP #3 -> FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER
To frame a shadow answer, we must know what the correct answer should do. In this question, the correct answer must be 100 percent substantiated by the facts mentioned in the passage.
SHADOW ANSWER: Any situation that is fully validated by the facts in the passage.
STEP #4 -> ELIMINATE INCORRECT OPTIONS
Options that do not match the shadow answer can be eliminated.
A) In light of current architectural theory, the Watergate Bridge should be closed until reinforcements can be added. | NOT A MATCH | The portion "the Watergate Bridge should be closed" makes this option too extreme. While FACT #3 does mention that updated architectural norms and theory as noted by the regulators advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage, we do not know if it is necessary for the bridge to be closed to be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage. It may or may not need to be closed, meaning nothing in the passage indicates that it should be, and remember, we are looking for an option that is fully validated by the facts in the passage. | ELIMINATE
B) The original regulations for the depth of the suspension tower failed to anticipate future changes in demand or architectural theory. | MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER | Now, let us ask ourselves a few questions. What information do we have about original regulations for the depth of the suspension tower? FACT #1 states that the regulations required engineers to drill holes for the towers such that the portion of the tower below ground accounted for at least half of the height of the tower during the first wave of suspension bridge construction. FACT #3, however, states that after conducting an inspection into the depth of the holes drilled for the towers of the Watergate Bridge (which was actually constructed during the first wave of suspension bridge construction), regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage. Can we therefore infer that the original regulations failed to anticipate future changes in demand or architectural theory? Yes, because if they did not fail to do so, the advise that the bridge's towers be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage would not exist. | KEEP
C) Even with the implementation of the reinforcements advocated by the new architectural norms, the bridge will still not be safe. | NOT A MATCH | We have nothing in the passage that indicates what the outcome of the implementation of the reinforcements will be. | ELIMINATE
D) In light of the regulators’ findings, every suspension bridge built during the first wave of construction must be updated to provide additional strength and carrying capacity. | NOT A MATCH | Watergate Bridge is the only suspension bridge built during the first wave of construction discussed in the passage. No fact in the passage tells us anything about every suspension bridge that was built during the first wave of construction. This option can therefore be safely eliminated. | ELIMINATE
E) The action advocated by current architectural theory should not be undertaken since there is no evidence to guarantee that the reinforcements will be adequate or advisable in light of future architectural research. | NOT A MATCH | First and foremost, the portion "action advocated by current architectural theory should not be undertaken" is too extreme and not substantiated by any fact in the passage; second, none of the facts indicate that there is no evidence to guarantee that the reinforcements will be adequate or advisable in light of future architectural research. This option is absolutely beyond the scope of the passage. We can therefore safely eliminate it. | ELIMINATE
Hence, (B) has to be the correct answer.
01 Sep 2024, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The conclusion of the stimulus is: "regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage".
A. Since the bridge "should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage," the author implies that the bridge is currently safe but should be reinforced to prepare for future changes in usage.
B. Two reasons are given for reinforcing: (1) "updated architectural norms" (2) "to meet anticipated increases in usage." Since the changes must be made for these two reasons, we can conclude that the original standards did not anticipate these two reasons/factors.
C. This answer states that the bridge still "will not be safe." The passage never states or implies that the bridge will not be safe. In fact, the words "to meet" seem to imply that the bridge will be safe with the changes.
D. The new architectural norms advocate the addition of supplemental reinforcements for the Watergate Bridge "to meet anticipated increases in demand." We cannot conclude that the historic regulations are faulty or that the situation with the Watergate Bridge mirrors that of every other bridge (i.e., since not every bridge is like the Watergate in its "anticipated increases in usage," we cannot conclude that every bridge needs the same reinforcements as the Watergate does).
E. The action should be undertaken because it is advised by regulators and is consistent with current design theory. The bridge was originally constructed "consistent with best-practices at the time" and the new reinforcements will help "meet anticipated increases in usage." The stimulus gives no indication that current best-practices should be abandoned simply because it is impossible to predict future theory.
