Scientists propose placing seismic stations on the floor of the Pacifi

Question

Scientists propose placing seismic stations on the floor of the Pacific Ocean to warn threatened coastal communities on the northwestern coast of the United States of approaching tidal waves caused by earthquakes. Since forewarned communities could take steps to evacuate, many of the injuries and deaths that would otherwise occur could be avoided if the government would implement this proposal.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most important in determining whether implementing the proposal would be likely to achieve the desired result?

(A) When was the last time that the coastal communities were threatened by an approaching tidal wave?

(B) How far below sea level would the stations be located?

(C) Would there be enough time after receiving warning of an approaching tidal wave for communities to evacuate safely?

(D) How soon after a tidal wave hits land is it safe for evacuees to return to their communities?

(E) Can the stations be equipped to collect and relay information about phenomena other than tidal waves caused by earthquakes?

Carcass · Accepted Answer

(A) When was the last time that the coastal communities were threatened by an approaching tidal wave?

The last time or in other words what happened in the past is not our concern. OUT

(8) How far below sea level would the stations be located?

The station is not the point at issue: we care about of people NOT stations where they are located. OUT

(C) Would there be enough time after receiving warning of an approaching tidal wave for communities to evacuate safely?

This is our answer. People have enough time or not: yes a lots of people could be saved, otherwise a lots of people could be killed

(0) How soon after a tidal wave hits land is it safe for evacuees to return to their communities?

The return to home is not relevant. OUT

(E) Can the stations be equipped to collect and relay information about phenomena other than tidal waves caused by earthquakes?

Other than tidal or in other words something else to check by the stations is not related to our argument. OUT

vishnuns39620 · Answer

I think Option C is the correct one.

The main "positive" outcome is the potential reduction in injury & deaths. But for this to happen, we must know whether the early warning system is "early enough" . Option C correctly asks this question and is the best option of the ones given.

Hope it helps!

selfishmofo · Answer

can you guys help point the premise and or conclusion. Here's what I think the argument's structure is 
Background, why? Outlines a descriptive plan. 
Premise, Since Forewarned....evacuate.

Is the premise where I plug in the yes or no? If yes they evacuate, or if no they don't evacuate?

I'm having problems breaking down the argument, and labeling everything correctly. I'm guessing that my problem is in identifying the premise, background, conclusion, etc. please help.

JJakeRRoberts · Answer

ANS = C - This question is the "Evaluate the conclusion/argument." where, we need to find the statement which provides information to decide whether the assumption in the argument is true or false. 
Now, the assumption might be - Do people get enough time to evacuate?
C - ANS - If it is far away - More time - so people have time to evacuate. If too close - then no time to evacuate. So C.

CEdward · Answer

I think C is the most clear answer here, but what does everyone think about B? B is also compelling in my view and operates along the same lines of logic.

(B) How far below sea level would the stations be located?

The success of the seismic station depends directly on the transmission of signals to people living in the coastal communities.
Suppose the stations are located too far below sea-level, then transmission would be interrupted/not make it to the communities (weaken). On the other hand if they are placed at the appropriate depth then we have reason to believe the signal would make it (strengthen).

Thoughts?

errorlogger · Answer

CEdward

(B) How far below sea level would the stations be located?

The success of the seismic station depends directly on the transmission of signals to people living in the coastal communities.  Where is this mentioned in the paragraph mentioned above? Golden rule: You shouldn't put your pre-learnt concepts into use in CR. One must put on, what I call as   GMAT Blinders   while answering such questions.

egmat · Answer

The correct Answer - C.

Let us solve this systematically.

Passage Analysis 
- Proposal: seismic stations on the Pacific Ocean floor
- Why: To warn coastal communities of approaching tidal waves, caused by earthquakes
- Belief behind the proposal: Forewarned communities will be able to take steps to evacuate 
- Expected result - many of the injuries and deaths which would otherwise occur (in the absence of a warning system such as this) can be avoided thanks to the seismic stations

Question  
The answer to which of the following questions would be most important in determining whether implementing the proposal would be likely to achieve the desired result?

In other words, we need to evaluate the proposal in terms of whether it is likely to achieve the desired result or not

Conclusion to evaluate:  The proposal (seismic stations of the pacific ocean floor) is likely to help avoid many injuries and deaths which would otherwise occur

Prethinking 
Let us identify the scenarios in which our conclusion breaks. That will help us test the validity of the conclusion/argument.

In what scenario would the proposal not really help in avoiding many injuries and death?

Given that 
- seismic stations will be able to provide warning about impending tidal waves due to earthquakes
- Forewarned communities will be able to take steps to evacuate

What if the warnings do not reach the communities in time? In other words, what if the time between receipt of the warning is too little for the communities to do evacuation measures? Then even with warnings from seismic stations (proposal), the communities may not be able to avoid injuries and death.

Evaluate Statement 
Whether there is a good enough time difference between receipt of a warning and time of impact of the tidal wave(s) for the communities to evacuate safely?

Option Choice Analysis

(A) When was the last time that the coastal communities were threatened by an approaching tidal wave?
When was the last time there was a tidal wave threat has no bearing on whether the new proposal will be able to help avoid injury and death

(B) How far below sea level would the stations be located?
We have no information in the argument to gauge the impact of location on the effectiveness of the seismic stations. Effect of exact location of seismic stations on whether they will likely succeed in avoiding injury/death is unclear. Hence, incorrect.

(C)  Would there be enough time after receiving warning of an approaching tidal wave for communities to evacuate safely? 
Correct. As per our Prethinking. 
if YES - Then, it increases likelihood of the proposal being successful once implemented. Communities will have enough time to evacuate safely
if NO - Then it reduces belief in the notion that the plan will likely be successful. Communities will not have enough time to evacuate, despite the warning from the seismic stations.

(D) How soon after a tidal wave hits land is it safe for evacuees to return to their communities?
Completely Irrelevant. How does it matter when it is safe for people who have evacuated to come back? Maybe 1 week, maybe 1 month. It has no bearing on the argument at hand

(E) Can the stations be equipped to collect and relay information about phenomena other than tidal waves caused by earthquakes?
Irrelevant. Our argument is about whether the seismic stations will succeed in preventing injury/death in cases of tidal waves caused by earthquakes. Any other potential disaster (say, hurricane) is not relevant to the argument we are trying to validate.

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Harsha

aperiamdolorum · Answer

(A) When was the last time that the coastal communities were threatened by an approaching tidal wave?
→ not relevant

(B) How far below sea level would the stations be located?
→ not helpful to assess the accuracy of the proposal (no matter what level)

(C) Would there be enough time after receiving warning of an approaching tidal wave for communities to evacuate safely?
→ RELEVANT. In order to assess whether the proposal is really useful (i.e. implementing a prevention system), it's important to know if people will be able to leave on time. Otherwise, implementing it will be of no benefit.

(D) How soon after a tidal wave hits land is it safe for evacuees to return to their communities?
→ not the concern. returning home is not the issue here.

(E) Can the stations be equipped to collect and relay information about phenomena other than tidal waves caused by earthquakes?
→ out of scope/too broad

Scientists propose placing seismic stations on the floor of the Pacifi

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

Scientists propose placing seismic stations on the floor of the Pacifi

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