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 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
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 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
09 Apr 2010, 19:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
56% (01:44) correct
44%
(02:46)
wrong
based on 37
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are hired to check buildings with columns for stability; those columns that are deemed intact and thus do not require reinforcement with iron core are often ordered to undergo extensive testing for strength and stability anyway, for the special building inspectors are concerned about the possibility of having misjudged the ability of such columns to withstand pressure without collapsing. When the results of some of the extensive tests were reviewed, however, no columns that had initially been deemed intact after a disaster were shown to have failed the strength and stability tests that were ordered anyway. Thus, the extensive testing that the special building inspectors order for columns that they have already deemed intact after a disaster is a waste of money.
Which of the following, if true, does the most to strengthen the argument?
(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly.
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support.
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed.
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests.
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster.
Which of the following, if true, does the most to strengthen the argument?
(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly.
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support.
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed.
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests.
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
09 Apr 2010, 19:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
I'll go with E here, since everything else can be crossed out by POE.
Conclusion is "The extensive testing that the special building inspectors order for columns that they have already deemed intact after a disaster is a waste of money."
(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly. ( no where in the argument is there a comparison between building inspectors and special building inspectors)
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support. ( Many but not all, some could still rely on columns)
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed. ( this one is clearly incorrect since there are not multiple building inspectors reviewing natural disasters and even if there are it doesn't strengthen the argument)
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests. ( the stability was intact before the iron core was used as well, so this doesn't get us anywhere)
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster. ( the only one left and this says that the inspectors are wasting money since they are testing columns not even affected by disaster) - Correct
Conclusion is "The extensive testing that the special building inspectors order for columns that they have already deemed intact after a disaster is a waste of money."
(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly. ( no where in the argument is there a comparison between building inspectors and special building inspectors)
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support. ( Many but not all, some could still rely on columns)
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed. ( this one is clearly incorrect since there are not multiple building inspectors reviewing natural disasters and even if there are it doesn't strengthen the argument)
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests. ( the stability was intact before the iron core was used as well, so this doesn't get us anywhere)
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster. ( the only one left and this says that the inspectors are wasting money since they are testing columns not even affected by disaster) - Correct
27 Apr 2010, 01:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO E.
(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly.
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support.
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed.
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests.
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster.
After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are hired to check buildings with columns for stability; those columns that are deemed intact and thus do not require reinforcement with iron core are often ordered to undergo extensive testing for strength and stability anyway, for the special building inspectors are concerned about the possibility of having misjudged the ability of such columns to withstand pressure without collapsing. When the results of some of the extensive tests were reviewed, however, no columns that had initially been deemed intact after a disaster were shown to have failed the strength and stability tests that were ordered anyway. Thus, the extensive testing that the special building inspectors order for columns that they have already deemed intact after a disaster is a waste of money.
Which of the following, if true, does the most to strengthen the argument?
(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly. [Out of scope. Incorrect]
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support. [This is a case of SHELL GAME TRAP. Incorrect]
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed. [This is a case of OPPOSITE ANSWER. The trap here is many disasters reviewed. This is just opposite to one of the premises. Incorrect]
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests. [This is rather weaking the conclusion. Incorrect]
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster.
(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly.
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support.
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed.
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests.
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster.
After a natural disaster, special building inspectors are hired to check buildings with columns for stability; those columns that are deemed intact and thus do not require reinforcement with iron core are often ordered to undergo extensive testing for strength and stability anyway, for the special building inspectors are concerned about the possibility of having misjudged the ability of such columns to withstand pressure without collapsing. When the results of some of the extensive tests were reviewed, however, no columns that had initially been deemed intact after a disaster were shown to have failed the strength and stability tests that were ordered anyway. Thus, the extensive testing that the special building inspectors order for columns that they have already deemed intact after a disaster is a waste of money.
Which of the following, if true, does the most to strengthen the argument?
(A)Building inspectors who do not specialize in assessing the damage after a natural disaster are less likely than the special building inspectors hired to check buildings after such a disaster to judge the stability of a column correctly. [Out of scope. Incorrect]
(B)Many buildings that are damaged in natural disasters do not rely on columns for support. [This is a case of SHELL GAME TRAP. Incorrect]
(C)The results of strength and stability tests ordered by many different special building inspectors for columns deemed intact after many different natural disasters were reviewed. [This is a case of OPPOSITE ANSWER. The trap here is many disasters reviewed. This is just opposite to one of the premises. Incorrect]
(D)The stability of columns deemed intact after reinforcement by iron core is always affirmed by strength and stability tests. [This is rather weaking the conclusion. Incorrect]
(E)Building inspectors routinely order extensive strength and stability testing for columns even when these columns have never been affected by a natural disaster.
