City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl

Question

City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simply by expanding residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums. The condominium sales will most likely be insufficient unless incentives for investment in local small business are offered. The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail.
 
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the reasoning in the argument above?

(A) When several nearby cities recently attempted to revitalize their city centers by expanding luxury residential space, small businesses rushed to take advantage of the new market, significantly contributing to the success the revitalization projects.

(B) In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.

(C) The city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center was largely unsuccessful.

(D) An increase in luxury condos would substantially increase property tax revenue in the city center.

(E) Before small businesses could open near the proposed luxury condominiums, significant investment would be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area.

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 36: Critical Reasoning 
 Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day:   E-mail  |  RSS 
 For All QOTD Questions  Click Here

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

The city planner's conclusion is stated in the last sentence: "The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail." How does the city planner arrive at this conclusion?

In the first sentence, the city planner essentially asks, "If we  only  expand residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums, will our city center be adequately revitalized?" The answer, according the city planner, is, "No. Offering expanded residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums is not enough to revitalize the city center." 
 So if condominium sales will most likely be insufficient on their own, what else is needed? According to the author, the condominium sales will only sufficiently revitalize the city center if incentives for investment in local small business are also offered. In other words, high-priced condos are not enough; in order revitalize the city center, we need both high-priced condos AND incentives for investment in local small business. 
 Restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries are examples of local small businesses. Thus, the author implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses. 
 If the city council is NOT aggressive in attracting small businesses to the city center, the city center will not be successfully revitalized. The author implies that the revitalization project will only be successful if high-priced condos are offered AND if small businesses are attracted to the city center.

Now that we understand the author's reasoning, let's look for an answer choice that, if true, most weakens that reasoning:

(A) According to the passage, we need both high-priced condos AND small businesses in order to successfully revitalize the city center. The city planner implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses. But what if those small businesses would come to the city center on their own, without any incentives or efforts on the part of the city council? Choice (A) is evidence that the small businesses might come to the city center on their own to take advantage of the new market. If the same thing were to happen in the city described in the passage, there would be no need for the city council to aggressively attract small businesses or to offer incentives for investment in local small business. Thus, choice (A) is evidence that the city planner's logic is not sound, so let's keep it.

(B) The city planner does not imply that proximity to service industries is the  most important  factor that buyers consider when choosing a residence. The author simply suggests that the revitalization project will fail if the city council does not aggressively attract small businesses to the city center, without explaining  why  those small businesses are necessary. Thus, choice (B) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(C) We don't know why "the city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center" was largely unsuccessful. Perhaps that attempt was a failure because the city council was  not  aggressive or did  not  offer incentives for investment in those restaurants. Or perhaps the council attempted to attract those restaurants before making plans to expand residential space, in which case investors may have seen no reason to invest in restaurants located in that part of the city. Choice (C) does not weaken the author's argument and can be eliminated.

(D) Choice (D) describes a potential financial benefit that would result from the expansion of residential space in the form of high-priced (or "luxury") condos. The author does not deny that luxury condos would have other benefits (tax revenue, job creation, etc). Instead, the author implies that the benefits will not be sufficient to revitalize the city center  unless  small businesses are also attracted. Choice (D) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(E) The city planner does not deny that significant investment might be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area. Regardless, the city planner believes that attracting small business is necessary if the city is to revitalize the center. Choice (E) strengthens the city planner's argument because it is evidence that incentives must be offered in order to attract the significant investment that would be needed. Eliminate (E).

Choice (A) is the best answer.

Ashokshiva · Answer

Option A

A) states the link between revitalization project and small business
B)Irrelevant to revitalization project
c) talks only about hotels, what about other business, eliminate
D) Irrelevant
E) Not related to the conclusion, success of revitalization project

sarbjeetsingh777 · Answer

This is a weakener question, that means we have to choose the option which weakens the conclusion of the argument. 
Prethinking: As we read the argument, we can find the conclusion i.e. the revitalization project will fail if the city council does not bring small businesses in the city center. That means we need to find an option which will present a situation under which the project will not fail. Based on this understanding, we can go through the answer choices and choose the correct one.
(A) When several nearby cities recently attempted to revitalize their city centers by expanding luxury residential space, small businesses rushed to take advantage of the new market, significantly contributing to the success the revitalization projects. --> CORRECT  this exactly matches with our prethinking. this option gives us an example of nearby cities where the same thing was done by the authority, but small businesses, without any initiative by the city council, rushed in to the city center to take advantage of this oppurtunity. Note that this option is not ensuring the success of the project but is giving us a reason to think that the project might not fail, i.e. the property of a weakener
(B) In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.--> this a perfect example of an  iSWAT  answer choice i.e. "incorrect similarly worded attractive terminology". It uses the same terminology as used in the argument but fails to give us a solid weakener which will enure the success of the project. 
(C) The city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center was largely unsuccessful.-->  Incorrect and irrelevant , we are not concerned about the attempts of the city council, we are concerned about the success or the failure of the project
(D) An increase in luxury condos would substantially increase property tax revenue in the city center.--> Icorrect and irrelevant , no informaion is provided by the argument regarding the effect of increased property tax revenue in teh city center
(E) Before small businesses could open near the proposed luxury condominiums, significant investment would be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area.-->  Incorrect and irrelevant the argument talks nothing about the required investment and its effects on the project

GMATNinja · Answer

We don't need an answer choice that  GUARANTEES  that the revitalization project will succeed. We simply need an answer choice that  MOST  weakens the reasoning in the passage. The evidence presented in choice (A)  weakens  the argument, even though it certainly does not guarantee that the project will succeed.

For example, if 10 cities were able to reduce traffic congestion by building an underground subway system, this evidence supports the idea that other cities could do the same. However, the evidence certainly does not guarantee that the same plan will ALWAYS work.

adkikani · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja ,
Can you suggest if there are two opinions in an argument by an author
(for eg in this case, the first and last sentence) how do we arrive at the
main conclusion?
WR,
Arpit

GMATNinja · Answer

Thanks for the question! Try looking at the first sentence alone: "Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simply by expanding residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums." If the reader were given only this sentence, would that reflect the author's main point? Does the author want the reader to walk away simply thinking that revitalization will be inadequate if they only expand residential space with high-priced condos? What does the author want to happen? Does the author simply want to provide the theory stated in the first sentence?

No! The author wants to convey that "the city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center" if the project is not to fail. The author's main goal is to convey THAT message, not simply to provide the information in the first sentence.

So, in these cases, try asking yourself, "What is the author's main purpose? What does the author want to happen? What does the author want the reader to do?" These questions can help you determine the conclusion.

I hope that helps!

megakee9 · Answer

I think that (B) is not the answer because it tackles the 'given fact.' We should accept 'small businesses are needed for revitalization' as a fact. The point we should focus on is that 'whether or not the strong incentives from the city council are needed to attract the small businesses.' This is the part where we should tackle, and (A) does that job. (A) could be tricky because we usually become skeptical about choices that brings a case. This might not be an assumption, but should be aware that it could sometimes be a reason to strengthen or weaken the argument.

mSKR · Answer

Hi  AndrewN  Sir,

Another meaning clarification :
 The majority of respondents don't consider proximity to be the most important factor .

What is the right approach to deal sentence with such a meaning:
1. The majority of respondents consider proximity to be one of the factors but less important.
With 1st reasoning, maybe it can weaken to some extend, so better to hold on unless we get stronger option.

2. The majority of respondents may consider proximity to be one of the factor except most important We can not determine whether it is less important or no important( doesn't matter to respondents) at all.
With 2nd reasoning, we don't have enough information so it is hard to weaken the conclusion. So reject Option B straightaway.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  imSKR . I was just looking at this question a day or two ago, so I remember it well. Your first interpretation is probably closer to the heart of the matter, but we cannot say for sure. Say that on a survey, 10 statements were given from which respondents could rank their preferences. Out of those 10, choice (B) would inform us, most respondents indicated that  proximity to service industries   the  most  important factor when choosing a residence . For all we know, though, it could be the  second  most important factor, or, in line with your second interpretation above, not considered important enough to even be on the list (perhaps ranked tenth). It does not matter one way or the other, in terms of the question being asked. We need a clear-cut weakener. Again, take a look at the argument:

To weaken this argument, we need to soften the recommendation and still end up with a likely positive outcome for the revitalization project, something along the lines of the following:

The city council may not necessarily have to be aggressive in drawing new restaurants... to the city center; the revitalization project may succeed without such efforts.

Choice (B) cannot inform our approach to the matter, since the  most important  part is open to interpretation. Choice (A), on the other hand, provides a reasonable model that other city centers in similar situations have followed to success: the  significantly  is just icing on the cake.

I hope that helps. Thank you for drawing my attention to the question.

- Andrew

gmatmed · Answer

Was confused between A and B. Can you re-clarify: If buyers don't wish for service industries, isn't it contradicting the author's statement that sales will be sufficient? And if sales are sufficient, it can mean that nothing else needs to be done for the city center.
A : For some questions, we always say that if something happened in other places, doesn't mean that it will be applicable in this situation. Going by this logic, it is not necessary that the sale of luxury condos will attract service industries here.
Help!!!

GMATNinja · Answer

It’s important to note that the author never concludes that, by drawing small businesses, the condo sales will be sufficient. Rather, he/she indicates that, without these businesses, “sales will most likely be insufficient.” That’s different than concluding that adding the service industries will necessarily make sales sufficient, and it also does not mean that the lack of small businesses is the only factor limiting the success of the revitalization project. The author simply concludes that, without attracting service industries and other businesses, “the revitalization project will surely fail.”

With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at (B):

(B) does not suggest that buyers are NOT interested in close proximity to service industries. It merely indicates that buyers, according to the statewide survey, do not consider proximity to service industries to be the  most  important factor in their decision. It’s still possible that proximity to service industries is a  major  factor and would thus impact buyers’ decisions. Eliminate (B).

And here’s (A):

While the fact that nearby cities were able to easily draw small business investment to their luxury spaces does not  necessarily  mean that this particular city will experience similar success, (A) does give us reason to believe that this city  could reasonably expect  to experience similar success. That certainly doesn’t disprove the author’s argument, but it does weaken the author’s reasoning that incentives are necessary. Remember, we’re not looking for an answer choice that disproves the argument. We’re looking for an answer choice that weakens it. For that reason, (A) is correct.

I hope that helps!

yashsharma1 · Answer

GMATNinjaTwo   GMATNinja   KarishmaB

V39-34 : GMAT Club Tests  Please refer to this question. Here, we rejected option A because the reasoning was that what happened in Southern states need not be comparable to Northern states. There can be other factors affecting the growth of women's suffrage in the Southern states.

Similarly, how do we conclude here that whatever happened in other states will be repeated in the case in point. Although I understand why the other options are wrong, in case there is a similar situation during the exam, I might end up marking incorrectly. I specifically needed your help in understanding how these 2 question logics are different so that in one, the answer that is correct is incorrect for the other one

KarishmaB · Answer

When the author wants to make two cases comparable, they will do so using words such as "similarly sized", "nearby" etc.

(A) When several nearby cities recently attempted to revitalize their city centers by expanding luxury residential space, small businesses rushed to take advantage of the new market, significantly contributing to the success the revitalization projects.

... several nearby cities .. means the author wants you to evaluate this data because they are likely similar situations.
Also, there is no other possible option.

In the other question you mentioned, they were talking about north eastern states and giving data on southern states. That may or may not be comparable. So you should look for a better option. Since you find (C), (A) is rejected.

simplydecided720 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinjaTwo ,  bb 
How is A a better than D? 
A only shows that it happened in nearby cities, which may not happen here, 
while D says the city would gain "substantial" tax revenue from the condos - substantial should be able to cover for the need.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simply by expanding residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums. The condominium sales will most likely be insufficient unless incentives for investment in local small business are offered. The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail.
 
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the reasoning in the argument above?

A. When several nearby cities recently attempted to revitalize their city centers by expanding luxury residential space, small businesses rushed to take advantage of the new market, significantly contributing to the success of the revitalization projects.
B. In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.
C. The city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center was largely unsuccessful.
D. An increase in luxury condos would substantially increase property tax revenue in the city center.
E. Before small businesses could open near the proposed luxury condominiums, significant investment would be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area.

Conclusion (what must be shown): “The city council must be aggressive in drawing new service-industry small businesses to the center; otherwise, the revitalization will fail.”

Reasoning chain:

Adding luxury condominiums alone is unlikely to be sufficient. 
 Sales will reach the needed level only if small-business incentives are offered.

Key assumption: Small businesses will not move in spontaneously once luxury condos appear; they require council incentives. Knock out this assumption and the prescription collapses.
 
Evaluate the choices (seek the statement that most undermines the assumption):

(A) Nearby cities added luxury condos and businesses rushed in unprompted, leading to successful revitalizations.
This directly contradicts the assumption that incentives are needed. If the same dynamic could occur here, the council’s “aggressive” action is unnecessary. Strongly weakens → Correct.

(B) Luxury-condo buyers say proximity to services is not their top concern.
This mildly weakens (suggests sales might succeed even without businesses), but it does not show that businesses will show up by themselves. Impact is limited—less than (A).

(C) A recent (apparently timid) attempt to lure restaurants failed.
Implies stronger action is needed, bolstering the planner. Strengthens / irrelevant.

(D) Higher property-tax revenue from condos alone.
Financial upside does not touch the need-for-businesses link. Irrelevant.

(E) Large infrastructure investments would precede small-business openings.
Makes it harder for businesses to arrive unaided, reinforcing the planner’s stance. Strengthens.

Answer: (A)

guddo · Answer

Let me try.

I think (A) is better because it directly attacks the planner’s key claim that small businesses will not come unless the city actively provides incentives. Nearby cities show that luxury housing itself can attract those businesses.

(D) only says condos generate substantial tax revenue. That does not show that tax revenue alone would revitalize downtown or compensate for the absence of restaurants, laundries, childcare, and other services. “Substantial” does not mean “sufficient.”

So (A) attacks the stated necessity of incentives, while (D) merely adds another benefit of condos.

City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards