The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake destroyed over half the city and cha

Question

Which of the following best completes the passage below?

The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake destroyed over half the city and changed the development of the California economy, but much of the damage was actually caused by fire. It has been estimated that as much as 90% of the total destruction was a result of fire damage rather than movement of the earth. This figure is likely exaggerated, however, because the nearly universal practice of insuring San Francisco properties against fire but not earthquake damage all but guaranteed that ___________

A. most damage to the city was blamed on fire

B. the city would eventually be rebuilt

C. insurance companies were forced to offer earthquake coverage

D. residents subsequently moved to other cities where earthquake coverage was available

E. buildings not damaged by fire were never repaired

Can someone please help me with the logical structure and method to approach such questions? Fill in the bank is a complete bouncer for me.

BeckyRobinsonTPR · Answer

Fill in the blank can be difficult because it is unclear what type of question it is until you have read the passage. Regardless when you are reading this type read for the conclusion and any premises. 
The conclusion of this argument is "this figure is likely exaggerated" indicated by the word because and a reason following. The premise is that there is a universal practice of insuring against fire but not earthquake."

it is our job to determine what this universal practice guaranteed in light of the fact that the amount of fire damage was likely exaggerated.
 Which of the following best completes the passage below?

The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake destroyed over half the city and changed the development of the California economy, but much of the damage was actually caused by fire. It has been estimated that as much as 90% of the total destruction was a result of fire damage rather than movement of the earth. This figure is likely exaggerated, however, because the nearly universal practice of insuring San Francisco properties against fire but not earthquake damage all but guaranteed that ___________

-most damage to the city was blamed on fire
-the city would eventually be rebuilt
-insurance companies were forced to offer earthquake coverage
-residents subsequently moved to other cities where earthquake coverage was available
-buildings not damaged by fire were never repaired

Can someone please help me with the logical structure and method to approach such questions? Fill in the bank is a complete bouncer for me.[/quo

A) This is the correct answer because since people were insured for fire, they blamed their damage on fire - this explains why the figure was exaggerated.
B) The insurance does not guarantee that the city would be rebuild, nor does this fit with the topic of the paragraph.
C) this is not stated anywhere in the passage and cannot be the correct answer
D) Moving to other cities is far outside the scope of the passage as well
E) Never repaired is a very extreme set of words and we don't have any information as to the fact that this happened so it is outside the scope of the argument.

KeyurJoshi · Answer

practice of insuring San Francisco properties against fire  DID NOT  guarantee that - most damage to the city was blamed on fire

If this is the case then,
most damage was done by something else other than fire  EXAGGERATING  FIGURE OF 90% DAMAGE DUE TO FIRE.

Options except A are out of scope.

jim441 · Answer

Is there any problem with the structure of the following sentence??

This figure is likely exaggerated, however, because the nearly universal practice of insuring San Francisco properties against fire but not earthquake damage all but guaranteed that most damage to the city was blamed on fire

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument -

Which of the following best completes the passage below?

The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake destroyed over half the city and changed the development of the California economy, but much of the damage was actually caused by fire. It has been estimated that as much as 90% of the total destruction was a result of fire damage rather than movement of the earth. This figure is likely exaggerated, however, because the nearly universal practice of insuring San Francisco properties against fire but not earthquake damage all but guaranteed that ___________

- This last part tries to explain the contrast that the figure is exaggerated because maybe there was no insurance coverage for earthquakes, so of course, it is a widespread practice as there is coverage only for fire; when people file claims, that'll skew the data towards fire as against earthquake for which insurance is not popular.

A. most damage to the city was blamed on fire - ok.

B. the city would eventually be rebuilt - out of scope.

C. insurance companies were forced to offer earthquake coverage - Had this been the case, the insurance data would not have skewed towards fire. Distortion.

D. residents subsequently moved to other cities where earthquake coverage was available - out of scope.

E. buildings not damaged by fire were never repaired - Seems the case described in the argument is opposite.

The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake destroyed over half the city and cha

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 1906 San Francisco Earthquake destroyed over half the city and cha

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