Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false

Question

A is the OA. Its a OG question. the explanation is very similar to what Adhishail gave above.

gmatbull · Answer

There is no doubt on this about OA; sure, it's (A).

adishail · Answer

do I get one ?

FQ · Answer

yes thanks for the explanation

noboru · Answer

arent you assuming too much?

jogorhu · Answer

So here is my reasoning after reviewing this thread.

Underlying assumption-people will not prank call anymore once the call boxes are removed.

Strengthen-people will not call because if they do call, they will be traced and possibly punished, so people will not prank call once the boxes are removed.

fozzzy · Answer

Can someone explain this question... Toughie!

ramannanda9 · Answer

A, Sure, The argument says that removing the fire alarm boxes, will reduce the number of prank calls. We need some additional information which if true would strengthen the argument. Now option A says that fire department keeps track of the phone calls and records where they came from. What this essentially means is that they can track down the people who indulge in prank calls and probably fine or punish them and this would reduce the number of prank calls. Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone, these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect? A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from. Correct as already explained above. B. Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs Springfield approximately five million dollars annually. Irrelevant we do not intend to reduce the costs. We are concerned with reducing phone calls C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box. Makes em' more efficient, but does not reduce prank calls D. Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department’s capacity for responding to fires. It does doesn't it, But how does it help the argument E. On any given day, a significant percentage of the public telephones in Springfield are out of service. shell game ! public telephones are not the concern, if it were private telephones it could have been correct. But they don't intend to provide us with two correct options do they :-)

Skag55 · Answer

I accept the A easily by POE.
I strongly believe though that A is a far fetched argument.
One might continue the argument saying "the pranksters are not afraid of being reported by the fire dep, hence they will continue doing so, OR the pranksters would use a payphone to continue on making prank calls!"

Anyone with me? 8-)

paranoidvik · Answer

After POE, I was stuck with A and D. D: talks about the reduced capability of fire personnel due to false fire alarms. The main issue is to reduce prank calls. so this choice doesn't tell us if prank calls can be reduced or not, it simply states one of the problems of fire department in case of false alarms. A: Correct : If calls are traced, a person probably wouldn't fool around knowing that he can get caught

Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false

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