The mayor plans to deactivate the city's fire alarm boxes

Question

Editorial: The mayor plans to deactivate the city’s fire alarm boxes, because most calls received from them are false alarms. The mayor claims that the alarm boxes are no longer necessary, since most people now have access to either public or private telephone. But the city’s commercial district, where there is the greatest risk of fire, has few residents and few public telephones, so some alarm boxes are still necessary.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?

(A) Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs the city more than five million dollars annually.
(B) Commercial buildings have automatic fire alarm systems that are linked directly to the fire department.
(C) The fire department gets less information from an alarm box than it does from a telephone call.
(D) The city’s fire department is located much closer to the residential areas than to the commercial district.
(E) On average, almost 25 percent of the public telephones in the city are out of order.

Verbal Review 2015, CR26, P125

srijay007 · Accepted Answer

Will go with B
If there are auto fire alarms then there is no need for manual fire alram boxes used to call the fire dept. Hence even though there are no pub phones in comm district, the comm district is still safe without the manual fire alarm boxes

vnigam21 · Answer

Hi prep , I am happy to respond.

Conclusion of the above argument - some alarm boxes are still necessary. Reason as suggested from the argument - the city’s commercial district , where there is the greatest risk of fire, has few residents and few public telephones . SO, this goes against the mayor's plan/claim. So, the alarm boxes will still be necessary for the city's commercial district. Option C - The fire department gets less information from an alarm box than it does from a telephone call. This option is stating the advantage of the telephone calls over alarm boxes. That's good. But as we already know from the argument that the city’s commercial district , where there is the greatest risk of fire, has few public telephones , so instead of the advantages of the telephone calls, we still need the alarm boxes. So, this option makes the argument stand as it is. Therefore, incorrect. Step by Step approach - Its a weaken question, so, 1. Firstly, look for the conclusion. 2. Look for the premises which makes that conclusion hold. (Then, try to predict an answer. That will solidify your reasoning for the argument.) 3. Look for an alternate cause or something that weakens the conclusion along with the reasoning that is leading that conclusion to hold. If we look at the correct option for this question, Option B - Commercial buildings have automatic fire alarm systems that are linked directly to the fire department. This provides an alternate reason which weakens our conclusion of requiring the alram boxes still. So, correct. Hope you got the soultion for your question.

prep · Answer

Doubt regarding this question:

The conclusion of the argument is: Alarm boxes are necessary. So we have to prove that Alarm boxes aren't necessary.

Option C -> proves telephone calls are more important than alarm boxes thus making alarm boxes not necessary. Can someone explain me why is C wrong?

Can someone also explain a step by step approach to solve this question please?

vnigam21 · Answer

Detailed solution for this question :

The editorial argues that fire alarm boxes remain necessary in the commercial district, because the specific alternatives to the alarm boxes to which the mayor refers-public and private phones-are not common there. The question asks you to identify a weakness in the editorial’s argument in favor of keeping alarm boxes in the commercial district.

Choice B  is the best answer. If commercial businesses use a different alternative-alarm systems connected to the fire department-then the editorial’s conclusion is not well supported.

Neither  choice A nor choice C  gives any reason to think that the alarm boxes are not necessary, although both choices prove grounds for deactivating the boxes if they are no longer necessary.

Choice D  emphasizes the need to make sure that fires in the commercial district are reported quickly and does not weaken the editorial’s argument.

If public telephones are often out of order ( choice E ), there is more, rather than less, reason to think that the alarm boxes are necessary.

PriyamRathor · Answer

Hello Experts ,
 EducationAisle   AjiteshArun ,

I want to know the reason why E is wrong ?

(E) On average, almost 25 percent of the public telephones in the city are out of order.

My reasoning :-
1/ We donot know whether 25 percent of the public telephones in the city , which are out of order belong to the city's commercial district or not ? What if none of them belong to city's commercial district 
2/ Option E talks about only public telephones. Even if 25 percent public telephones are out of order, we still have private telephones which can be used in case of fire.

Thanks.

EducationAisle · Answer

Editorial states that alarm boxes are still necessary.

If anything, E actually  strengthens  the editorial’s argument; after all, if significant number of public telephones in the city are out of order, it strengthens the case that alarm boxes are still necessary.

The question however, asks us to pick a choice that  weakens  the editorial’s argument.

rashminuligonda · Answer

In option B. commercial building is mentioned. commercial district is diffrent from commercial building. why would residents live in commercial buildings( malls, retail spaces, etc)??

can someone help me with this please

guddo · Answer

I'd say that the point of B is not that  commercial buildings = commercial district . The point is that the editorial says alarm boxes are needed in the district because fires there may otherwise go unreported. But if the commercial buildings there already have automatic alarms linked to the fire department, then the main fire locations already have another  reporting method . So the “few residents / few public phones” point becomes much weaker, because the buildings themselves can report the fire.

NetOrb · Answer

i get how B weakens the argument that alarm boxes are needed in commercial district. But the primary argument in the passage was that alarm boxes are not needed because there are phones. and option E weakens that argument by saying 25% of phones are not faulty. then why is E not the correct answer?

guddo · Answer

Editorial: The mayor plans to deactivate the city’s fire alarm boxes, because most calls received from them are false alarms. The mayor claims that the alarm boxes are no longer necessary, since most people now have access to either public or private telephone. But the city’s commercial district, where there is the greatest risk of fire, has few residents and few public telephones, so some alarm boxes are still necessary. 
 
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?

The editorial says alarm boxes are still needed in the commercial district because there is high fire risk there, but few residents and few public telephones.  So the key assumption  is that fires in that district still need alarm boxes in order to be reported quickly.  The best weakener will show that another reporting system already covers that district.

(A) Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs the city more than five million dollars annually.

This supports the mayor more than it weakens the editorial. It gives a reason to remove the boxes, but it does not directly answer the editorial’s point about necessity in the commercial district.

(B) Commercial buildings have automatic fire alarm systems that are linked directly to the fire department.

This is correct. If the commercial buildings already have automatic systems directly connected to the fire department, then the editorial’s reason for keeping alarm boxes in that district becomes much weaker.

(C) The fire department gets less information from an alarm box than it does from a telephone call.

This weakens the value of alarm boxes somewhat, but it does not show they are unnecessary in the commercial district.

(D) The city’s fire department is located much closer to the residential areas than to the commercial district.

This does not weaken the editorial. If anything, it could make fast reporting in the commercial district even more important.

(E) On average, almost 25 percent of the public telephones in the city are out of order.

This strengthens the editorial, because it makes telephones look less reliable.

Answer: (B)

guddo · Answer

The key is:  the question asks you to weaken the editorial’s argument, not the mayor’s .

The editorial’s position is:
the commercial district has high fire risk and  too few reliable phones , so some alarm boxes are still necessary.

Now look at E:
if 25% of public phones are out of order, that makes phones an even worse substitute for alarm boxes. So E actually  supports the editorial , because it makes alarm boxes seem more necessary, not less.

B weakens the editorial because it says the main buildings in that district may already report fires automatically. That directly undercuts the editorial’s claim that alarm boxes are still needed there.

The reason why E is wrong is also explained  in this post .

The mayor plans to deactivate the city's fire alarm boxes

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

The mayor plans to deactivate the city's fire alarm boxes

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