Scientists propose placing seismic stations on the floor of the Pacifi

can you guys help point the premise and or conclusion. Here's what I think the argument's structure is
Background, why? Outlines a descriptive plan.
Premise, Since Forewarned....evacuate.

Is the premise where I plug in the yes or no? If yes they evacuate, or if no they don't evacuate?

I'm having problems breaking down the argument, and labeling everything correctly. I'm guessing that my problem is in identifying the premise, background, conclusion, etc. please help.

ANS = C - This question is the "Evaluate the conclusion/argument." where, we need to find the statement which provides information to decide whether the assumption in the argument is true or false.
Now, the assumption might be - Do people get enough time to evacuate?
C - ANS - If it is far away - More time - so people have time to evacuate. If too close - then no time to evacuate. So C.

I think C is the most clear answer here, but what does everyone think about B? B is also compelling in my view and operates along the same lines of logic.

(B) How far below sea level would the stations be located?

The success of the seismic station depends directly on the transmission of signals to people living in the coastal communities.
Suppose the stations are located too far below sea-level, then transmission would be interrupted/not make it to the communities (weaken). On the other hand if they are placed at the appropriate depth then we have reason to believe the signal would make it (strengthen).

Thoughts?

CEdward

(B) How far below sea level would the stations be located?

The success of the seismic station depends directly on the transmission of signals to people living in the coastal communities. Where is this mentioned in the paragraph mentioned above? Golden rule: You shouldn't put your pre-learnt concepts into use in CR. One must put on, what I call as GMAT Blinders while answering such questions.

The correct Answer - C.

Let us solve this systematically.

Passage Analysis
- Proposal: seismic stations on the Pacific Ocean floor
- Why: To warn coastal communities of approaching tidal waves, caused by earthquakes
- Belief behind the proposal: Forewarned communities will be able to take steps to evacuate
- Expected result - many of the injuries and deaths which would otherwise occur (in the absence of a warning system such as this) can be avoided thanks to the seismic stations

Question
The answer to which of the following questions would be most important in determining whether implementing the proposal would be likely to achieve the desired result?

In other words, we need to evaluate the proposal in terms of whether it is likely to achieve the desired result or not


Conclusion to evaluate: The proposal (seismic stations of the pacific ocean floor) is likely to help avoid many injuries and deaths which would otherwise occur

Prethinking
Let us identify the scenarios in which our conclusion breaks. That will help us test the validity of the conclusion/argument.

In what scenario would the proposal not really help in avoiding many injuries and death?

Given that
- seismic stations will be able to provide warning about impending tidal waves due to earthquakes
- Forewarned communities will be able to take steps to evacuate

What if the warnings do not reach the communities in time? In other words, what if the time between receipt of the warning is too little for the communities to do evacuation measures? Then even with warnings from seismic stations (proposal), the communities may not be able to avoid injuries and death.

Evaluate Statement
Whether there is a good enough time difference between receipt of a warning and time of impact of the tidal wave(s) for the communities to evacuate safely?

Option Choice Analysis

(A) When was the last time that the coastal communities were threatened by an approaching tidal wave?
When was the last time there was a tidal wave threat has no bearing on whether the new proposal will be able to help avoid injury and death

(B) How far below sea level would the stations be located?
We have no information in the argument to gauge the impact of location on the effectiveness of the seismic stations. Effect of exact location of seismic stations on whether they will likely succeed in avoiding injury/death is unclear. Hence, incorrect.

(C) Would there be enough time after receiving warning of an approaching tidal wave for communities to evacuate safely?
Correct. As per our Prethinking.
if YES - Then, it increases likelihood of the proposal being successful once implemented. Communities will have enough time to evacuate safely
if NO - Then it reduces belief in the notion that the plan will likely be successful. Communities will not have enough time to evacuate, despite the warning from the seismic stations.

(D) How soon after a tidal wave hits land is it safe for evacuees to return to their communities?
Completely Irrelevant. How does it matter when it is safe for people who have evacuated to come back? Maybe 1 week, maybe 1 month. It has no bearing on the argument at hand

(E) Can the stations be equipped to collect and relay information about phenomena other than tidal waves caused by earthquakes?
Irrelevant. Our argument is about whether the seismic stations will succeed in preventing injury/death in cases of tidal waves caused by earthquakes. Any other potential disaster (say, hurricane) is not relevant to the argument we are trying to validate.

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Harsha

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.