NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 27 Apr 2024, 21:38 It is currently 27 Apr 2024, 21:38
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   3   4   
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
L
Bunuel
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92959
Own Kudos [?]: 619512 [5]
Given Kudos: 81611
Send PM
CAT Tests Forum Quiz Mode
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 07:00
1
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

51% (02:05) correct 49% (02:08) wrong based on 324 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
12 Days of Christmas 🎅 GMAT Competition with Lots of Questions & Fun

Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $25,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

 

ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
Bunuel
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92959
Own Kudos [?]: 619512 [2]
Given Kudos: 81611
Send PM
CAT Tests Forum Quiz Mode
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:00
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Bunuel wrote:
12 Days of Christmas 🎅 GMAT Competition with Lots of Questions & Fun

Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $25,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

 



GMAT Club's Official Explanation:



The correct answer is (C).

C. In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.
- This choice directly weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument that modern, energy-efficient skyscrapers can reduce overall urban temperatures. It presents evidence that the construction of skyscrapers leads to a reduction in green spaces, which is a factor known to contribute to higher urban temperatures. This directly challenges the claim that skyscrapers would help in reducing urban heat.

The other options, while relevant to the general topic, do not weaken the advocates' argument as effectively:

A. Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.
- This answer choice strengthens advocate's argument since their argument is that the Skyscrapers reduce urban sprawl and doesn’t directly address the argument which is impact of skyscrapers on urban temperatures. Eliminate

B. Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.
- While this points to a flaw in the energy efficiency of skyscrapers, it does not address the argument. It is not clear if it is slightly or significantly higher energy consumption and we are not even talking about energy consumption. Watch out for vague answers that are out of scope. Finally, this choices does not directly address the urban heat island effect.

D. The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.
- This focuses on social and economic impacts rather than the specific issue of urban temperature and heat islands.

E. Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.
- This addresses economic feasibility but does not directly challenge the argument about skyscrapers reducing urban temperatures.

Thus, (C) is the strongest choice for weakening the argument that skyscrapers, even with energy-efficient designs, can help reduce urban temperatures.
General Discussion
User avatar
P
nivivacious
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2015
Posts: 343
Own Kudos [?]: 231 [0]
Given Kudos: 175
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GPA: 3.5
WE:Advertising (Advertising and PR)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 07:35
Bunuel wrote:
12 Days of Christmas 🎅 GMAT Competition with Lots of Questions & Fun

Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.
(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.
(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.
(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.
(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $25,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

 




(A) This option does not weaken the skyscraper advocates' argument but instead supports it. It suggests that reducing urban sprawl would reduce vehicle emissions and thus cause pollution.

B and C both weakens the argument, we can come back to it in a bit.

(D) This does not directly address the issue of urban temperatures so does not weaken the argument
(E) This like D does not directly address the issue of urban temperatures so does not weaken the argument.

(B) If the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected - this results in higher energy consumption - and hence the claim that skyscrapers can reduce overall urban temperatures is directly weakened. This is correct
(C) If the construction of skyscrapers leads to a decrease in green spaces - it will contribute to to higher urban temperatures and hence weakens the argument.
However C introduces a new factor - decrease in green spaces - and is not directly related to the advocates' claim about skyscrapers' energy efficiency; whereas, B directly challenges the advocates' claim about the effectiveness of modern energy-efficient designs in skyscrapers
Hence the answer is B
User avatar
B
DD16
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Apr 2020
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 8
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 670 Q48 V34
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V35
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 07:38
I will go with option B
A - incorrect. actually somehow strengthens the advocates conclusion.
C - incorrect because it is talking about High concentration of skyscrapers. Irrelevant.
D - Costs are not considered in the argument
E - incorrect. Economic viability is not considered in the argument.

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
S
Ash381
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Jan 2023
Posts: 33
Own Kudos [?]: 32 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GPA: 3.9
Send PM
CAT Tests
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 07:42
1
Kudos
I feel it's C. It weakens the point of skyscraper advocates saying that though they have modern and energy efficient design. Skyscraper lead to decrease in green space and increase in temperature.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
G
Shadyshades
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2020
Posts: 108
Own Kudos [?]: 63 [2]
Given Kudos: 832
Location: India
Schools: Yale '20 (D)
GMAT 1: 220 Q2 V2
Send PM
Forum Quiz Mode
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 07:49
2
Kudos
Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.


(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.- By reducing the Urban sprawl, we would expect reduced pollution. Eliminate A.

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.- Irrelevant.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures. - Correct

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.- Cost is irrelevant.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.- Again, cost is irrelevant.
User avatar
L
Archit3110
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Status:You learn more from failure than from success.
Posts: 8021
Own Kudos [?]: 4100 [0]
Given Kudos: 242
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Marketing
GMAT Focus 1:
545 Q79 V79 DI73
GPA: 4
WE:Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 07:51
IC :
City planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health.

in counter the advocates for skyscraper construction argue that with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

option that most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution. this is not relevant to the argument in discussion

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.correct , this statement weakens the argument advocated by skyscraper promoters that skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperature ; this option is not relevant to the arugment..

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas. costs is not being discussed in the argument so this option not relevant

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs. the main discussion about argument is related to pollution , environment not investments ; irrelevant

option B is correct


Bunuel wrote:
12 Days of Christmas 🎅 GMAT Competition with Lots of Questions & Fun

Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $25,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

 

User avatar
S
Laila12618
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 May 2020
Posts: 58
Own Kudos [?]: 107 [1]
Given Kudos: 36
Location: China
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 07:55
1
Kudos
I think it’s C.

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

This argument is not about the effects of the new urban constructions

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

Energy consumption is not discussed in the passage

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

Yes it weakens the hypothesis of the construction advocate

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

Not relevant

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.

Not relevant for urban temperature and sprawl

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
G
Gprabhumir
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Jan 2023
Posts: 110
Own Kudos [?]: 80 [0]
Given Kudos: 78
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Accounting
Schools: ISB HBS Kellogg INSEAD Jan'25 intake
GMAT Focus 1:
655 Q85 V81 DI82 (Online)
GPA: 9.4
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 07:56
Bunuel wrote:
12 Days of Christmas 🎅 GMAT Competition with Lots of Questions & Fun

Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $25,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

 



City planners argue that:
    Taller buildings
    More heat
    More pollution
    Public health is impacted

Skyscraper advocates' argue that:
Modern designs reduce temperature
Centralize population
Reduce urban sprawl

Question asked is "weaken" the argument.

Lets check A.
Bunuel wrote:
(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

This is, in fact, strengthening advocates' argument.
A is out

Let's check B
Bunuel wrote:
(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

Advocates' suggest that new designs are energy efficient.
This option says that these designs often fail.
This weakens the advocates' argument.
Hold on to B

Now C
Bunuel wrote:
(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

This information is already given, it's the planners' argument.
C is not correct answer.

D & E seem to be irrelevant.

Therefore, B is the answer.

Kudos please!
User avatar
B
mohitdhc
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Jul 2023
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 07:58
1
Kudos
Premises 1: some city planners says new sky scrapers leads to higher city temperature which leads to increase in pollution and consequently impacts public health
Advocate argument : with the modern energy efficient design, skyscrappers can reduce the temperatures by doing so and so.
we are looking for a weakener, so some additional premise or additional info which can question advocates argument.

option A) irrelevant, does not concern the temperature
B) looks good but reading second time shows higher energy consumption, which does not concern the argument
C) in alternate city, tall buildings reduces green space. maybe this is the answer
D and E are irrelevant and out of scope.
User avatar
S
GMATCenturion
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 May 2023
Posts: 218
Own Kudos [?]: 240 [2]
Given Kudos: 45
Location: India
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:04
2
Kudos
Bunuel wrote:
12 Days of Christmas 🎅 GMAT Competition with Lots of Questions & Fun

Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $25,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

 



(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

This strengthens the argument and not weakens it. If the urban sprawl increases vehicle emissions then reduction of it should reduced urban pollution. However, we have to weaken the argument.

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

The relation of higher energy consumption and city being warmer is not given. Hence, this statement neither supports or weakens the argument.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

This is a correct weakener. If the green spaces reduce , the urban temperature increases. Hence building skyscrapers can have the opposite effect. Let's keep this.

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

Out of scope as housing costs are not the contention of the argument.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.

Out of scope as costs or anything related to pricing is not the contention of the argument.

IMO C
User avatar
S
pooh.2304
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 May 2023
Posts: 79
Own Kudos [?]: 38 [0]
Given Kudos: 25
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, International Business
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:05
(A) This statement supports the argument for skyscrapers by suggesting that reducing urban sprawl (which skyscrapers can contribute to) can help decrease vehicle emissions, a major source of urban pollution. This does not weaken the advocates' argument. Rejected

(B) This option weakens the advocates' argument by suggesting that energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers may not perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption. Accepted

(C) This option doesn't directly challenge the core argument made by the advocates about the effectiveness of energy-efficient designs in reducing overall urban temperatures. Rejected

(D) This option provides information about social and economic consequences of skyscraper construction but does not directly address the argument about urban temperatures and energy efficiency. Rejected

(E) This option talks about initial investment and economically feasibility instead of urban temperatures and energy efficiency. Rejected
User avatar
G
limuengaoey
Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2021
Posts: 111
Own Kudos [?]: 72 [0]
Given Kudos: 240
Location: Thailand
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.59
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:07
(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution. --> A is the answer b/c the advocater mentioned the urban sprawl and it weakens the point of advocaters.

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption. --> not strong enough

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures. --> mentioned only high temp but not about pollution

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas. --> not mentioned about pollution.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs. --> investment is irrelevant.
User avatar
G
vishal_gupta
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 May 2023
Posts: 154
Own Kudos [?]: 111 [1]
Given Kudos: 41
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Stanford '26 Wharton '26 Yale '26 Columbia CBS'26 HBS '26 Booth '26 HEC Sep'24 Intake IE Sep'24 intake INSEAD Aug'24 intake LBS '26 Ivey '25 IIMA '25 IIMB '25 IIMC '25 Kellogg '26 Judge '25 Oxford Said'25 Sloan '26 Tuck '26 Stern '26
GPA: 76%
WE:Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Forum Quiz Mode
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:15
1
Kudos
Bunuel wrote:
12 Days of Christmas 🎅 GMAT Competition with Lots of Questions & Fun

Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $25,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

 



The weakener for skyscraper advocates would be one which shows that the temp is increasing due to construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas. C does the same.
User avatar
L
Kinshook
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Jun 2019
Posts: 5345
Own Kudos [?]: 3972 [1]
Given Kudos: 160
Location: India
Schools: HBS '22 CBS '22 Wharton '22
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:16
1
Kudos
Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

The skyscraper's advocates' argument: With modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Quote:
(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

The statement supports the skyscraper's advocates' argument and NOT weakens it.
With modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl. Since Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution, Skyscrapers reduce urban sprawl which reduces urban pollution.
Incorrect

Quote:
(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

The skyscraper's advocates' argument is about urban temperature and NOT about energy consumption.
Incorrect

Quote:
(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

Skyscraper argues that with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.
In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.
The statement seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument.
Correct

Quote:
(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

The skyscraper's advocates' argument is about urban temperature and NOT about housing costs in urban areas.
Incorrect

Quote:
(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.

The skyscraper's advocates' argument is about urban temperature and NOT about economical feasibility.
Incorrect
User avatar
S
Nikkz99
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Jun 2021
Posts: 47
Own Kudos [?]: 29 [1]
Given Kudos: 242
Location: India
GPA: 3.54
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:26
1
Kudos
Some city planners -> against construction of new skyscrapers.

Reasons:

1. Make cities warmer.
2. Exacerbates pollution -> impacts public health

Advocates for skyscraper Defends

Claims:

1. Can centralize population (with their efficient modern designs) -> reduce urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.

-> actually strengths as advocates claim that with new designs of skyscrapers, they can reduce urban sprawl.


(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

-> Plausible point. But can go through other points as well.


(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

-> Spot on! This sounds more weakening of the Claims made by advocates of the skyscraper.

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

-> Maybe it's a short run, the impact of the skyscrapers could have very good effect post construction. So out of scope.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.

-> This reason is deflecting from the discussion which have seen above. So, out of scope.


IMO, C.
User avatar
P
poojaarora1818
Director
Director
Joined: 30 Jul 2019
Posts: 876
Own Kudos [?]: 430 [1]
Given Kudos: 1187
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Economics
Schools: Foster Stern '26 Anderson '26 Kenan-Flagler '26 Haas '26 Kelley '26
WE:Human Resources (Human Resources)
Send PM
CAT Tests
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:30
1
Kudos
Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.Incorrect

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.Incorrect

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.CorrectIt goes against the conclusion

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.Incorrect

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.Incorrect
User avatar
S
SS.56
Manager
Manager
Joined: 18 Jul 2022
Posts: 87
Own Kudos [?]: 50 [0]
Given Kudos: 1059
Location: Nepal
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 570 Q45 V24
GMAT 2: 620 Q46 V30
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:31
Bunuel wrote:
12 Days of Christmas 🎅 GMAT Competition with Lots of Questions & Fun

Some city planners argue against the construction of new skyscrapers in urban areas, claiming that taller buildings increase the "urban heat island" effect, making cities warmer. They suggest that this increase in temperature exacerbates pollution and impacts public health. In response, advocates for skyscraper construction argue that, with modern energy-efficient designs, skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the skyscraper advocates' argument?

(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.----- This is out of scope. What has been happening in the city doesn't weaken the conclusion. Eliminate

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures.

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $25,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

 




(A) Urban sprawl has been shown to contribute significantly to increased vehicle emissions, which are a major source of urban pollution.----- This is out of scope. What has been happening in the city doesn't weaken the conclusion. Eliminate

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption. ----- This choice weakens the conclusion.

(C) In cities with a high concentration of skyscrapers, a significant decrease in green spaces has been observed, contributing to higher urban temperatures. ----- Not remotely close to our argument. Eliminate

(D) The construction of skyscrapers frequently disrupts existing communities and leads to increased housing costs in urban areas.----- Frequency of disruption is not the point here and also how increased housing costs is related to our argument? Eliminate

(E) Energy-efficient skyscrapers require a substantial initial investment, making them less economically feasible than traditional building designs.---- Again, economically feasible or not is not the point. Eliminate


IMO: B
User avatar
B
masson
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2023
Posts: 14
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: Guatemala
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:34
I think the answer to be B.

A) This does not weaken the argument because the advocates claim to be able to reduce urban sprawl

B) Their argument revolves around using energy-efficient designs for reducing temperatures, if studies pointed out that this was not as effective, then this would weaken their argument.

C) Even if this was true, nowhere does it state that this city would have a "high concentration" of skyscrapers fi these skyscrapers were built.

D) Increase in housing costs don't affect their argument

E) Even if designs were less economically-feasible, it does not state that they are NOT economically feasible.
User avatar
B
laulau23
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Jul 2023
Posts: 21
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [0]
Given Kudos: 19
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Sustainability
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink] New post   11 Dec 2023, 08:43
conclusion: With modern energy-efficient designs => skyscrapers can actually reduce overall urban temperatures by centralizing populations and reducing urban sprawl.
Any reason make (energy-efficient design NOT reduce urban temperatures) will weaken the argument

(B) Studies have demonstrated that the energy-efficient designs of new skyscrapers often fail to perform as well as projected, resulting in higher energy consumption. => CORRECT
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: 12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 1: Some city planners [#permalink]
11 Dec 2023, 08:43
 1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6923 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions