Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Updated on: 16 Sep 2017, 22:55
Originally posted by voodoochild on 31 Jul 2012, 16:04.
Last edited by BillyZ on 16 Sep 2017, 22:55, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by BillyZ on 16 Sep 2017, 22:55, edited 2 times in total.
Edited the question.
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
51% (01:47) correct
49%
(02:07)
wrong
based on 3560
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking doors at its entrance. In the town of Inverness, on the other hand, the entrances to nearly all banks are equipped with two sets of locking doors, operated by a mechanism that allows only one set of doors to be open at a time. It is clear, then, that banks in Inverness experience more robbery attempts than do those in La Rinconada, and have thus adopted the extra doors as a security measure.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
(A) Last year the number of bank robberies in La Rinconada was almost one-half greater than the corresponding figure for the previous year.
(B) Inverness is known for its harsh winters, while the climate of La Rinconada is quite temperate year-round.
(C) The mechanism of the double doors used by banks in Inverness allows bank security personnel to lock the doors remotely.
(D) Bank robbery attempts are typically unsuccessful, and, even when the robbers do manage to escape with stolen money, the sum is usually quite small.
(E) Inverness has almost twice as many police officers per capita as does La Rinconada.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
(A) Last year the number of bank robberies in La Rinconada was almost one-half greater than the corresponding figure for the previous year.
(B) Inverness is known for its harsh winters, while the climate of La Rinconada is quite temperate year-round.
(C) The mechanism of the double doors used by banks in Inverness allows bank security personnel to lock the doors remotely.
(D) Bank robbery attempts are typically unsuccessful, and, even when the robbers do manage to escape with stolen money, the sum is usually quite small.
(E) Inverness has almost twice as many police officers per capita as does La Rinconada.
Why is A) not a weakener? If the # of bank robberies in La Rin is > that in Inverness, the security is obviously out of question.
12 Oct 2013, 14:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
voodoochild
I'm responding to a PM on this one. I will start by saying the correct answer will be more logical to people who live in climates where double doors are used to maintain inside temperatures, but you can get to the answer by working through your CR process.
Assumptions fill in the logical gaps between premises and conclusions. If you want to weaken an argument you need to attack an assumption. In this question the premises state that Inverness has double doors and La Rinconada has single doors. The conclusion states that the double doors were for robbery prevention against Inverness' higher robbery rate. How do we get from double doors to robbery? We are assuming that the double doors are a method for preventing robbery (this is the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion).
Answer choices A, D, and E can quickly be eliminated for irrelevance to the issue of doors and robbery prevention. Since the correct answer is B, let's first analyze C. Choice C states that the double doors can be locked remotely. That seems to strengthen the assumption that the double doors are for robbery prevention. That choice feels very relevant to the argument but it's relevant in the wrong direction. We are trying to weaken the argument so we have to attack the assumption that doors are for robbery prevention, not strengthen it.
That only leaves us with choice B. Again, I will admit this requires a bit of a mental stretch for some, but can you think of the impact that climate has on door selection or use? Sure, when it's warm I sometimes leave my door open, but when it's cold or stormy I will absolutely close my door. This choice does provide information to suggest that the double doors may not have been installed for robbery prevention and instead as a protection against climate.
Don't be too quick to call some answer choices like this one out of scope. These questions can introduce new information not previously stated in the argument. The question is whether that new information attacks an assumption and therefore weakens the argument.
KW
19 Aug 2012, 23:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
For answer B, climate may explain why a two-door system is desirable, but it does nothing to explain why a double-locking system is desirable. Even if B is true, Inverness banks still have twice as many locks on their doors as do La Rinconada banks. So I'm not sure how B weakens the argument that Inverness banks have greater security concerns than do La Rinconada banks.
After all, the argument isn't saying "Inverness banks have two doors and La Rinconada banks only have one. Therefore Inverness banks have greater security concerns than La Rinconada banks". That would be a ridiculous argument, since it's pretty easy to walk through a door. The argument is based specifically on the fact that Inverness banks have two *locked* doors. The right answer to this question absolutely needs to address that point.
But answer C is the only other remotely plausible candidate, and to even contemplate C, I need to start making a lot of assumptions about bank security protocols. Making certain assumptions, you might be able to claim that C offers an alternative reason (besides additional security) for choosing double-locking doors. Perhaps remote lock operation leads to cost savings, or added convenience for bank personnel, and that's the reason Inverness banks chose them instead of single-locking doors. That seems extremely tenuous to me, though, so I dislike C as an answer here. But I think B is also quite a bad answer to this question if it is indeed the OA, since B only addresses a completely unimportant part of the original argument.
After all, the argument isn't saying "Inverness banks have two doors and La Rinconada banks only have one. Therefore Inverness banks have greater security concerns than La Rinconada banks". That would be a ridiculous argument, since it's pretty easy to walk through a door. The argument is based specifically on the fact that Inverness banks have two *locked* doors. The right answer to this question absolutely needs to address that point.
But answer C is the only other remotely plausible candidate, and to even contemplate C, I need to start making a lot of assumptions about bank security protocols. Making certain assumptions, you might be able to claim that C offers an alternative reason (besides additional security) for choosing double-locking doors. Perhaps remote lock operation leads to cost savings, or added convenience for bank personnel, and that's the reason Inverness banks chose them instead of single-locking doors. That seems extremely tenuous to me, though, so I dislike C as an answer here. But I think B is also quite a bad answer to this question if it is indeed the OA, since B only addresses a completely unimportant part of the original argument.
