A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl

Question

A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire. However, a home builder argued that because more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?

(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.

das.sushmit · Accepted Answer

A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire. However, a home builder argued that because more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?

(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.
(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.
(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.
(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.
(E) The largest proportion of property damage that
results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.

While considering weakening questions focus on the conclusion of the stimulus, here the homebuilder talks about how fires are extinguished by household members 90% of the time and gives additional reasoning saying that the sprinklers would marginally help stopping the fires and decrease the property damage. One way of weakening would be to show or give stats saying that the absence of household members would cause the fire to propagate and perpetuate. Hence we go through the answer options to check if anything matches this consideration.

A> out of scope -- no mention of training so it isnt even tangential so not essential to the stimulus
B>though it would be narrow in scope this option does not address the conclusion and should be eliminated
C>while this does talk about the merit of a smoke detector over a sprinkler it does not talk about damage control so is definitely out of context
D>again out of scope-- we're considering sprinkler installation over household member presence so cannot be considered 
E> this is the correct answer, it correctly points out the weakness in the housebuilder's argument and the key here is matching the phrase property damage.

hope this helps!

Carcass · Answer

Maybe for a novic is a tough question, i understand this but indeed is a sub 600 level question E straight. :roll:

BrainLab · Answer

01:09 straight E... B,C,D are either irrelevant or strengthen the argument. Only A could be a contender here 
Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires - However, 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, that means they just don't need any training......

AnubhavK · Answer

E is correct - Identifies a weakness in the home builder's argument by showing that most damage occurs when no household member is present to put out the fire.

mba757 · Answer

Conclusion : residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires  
 Prethink : Does the percentage of residential fires and amount of property damage correlate with one another? What if the 10% of fires equates to a lot more property damage?

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?
 (A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.
 We want to weaken the point that sprinklers -> marginal decrease in prop. damage from residential fire. WHAT they did to learn to extinguish fires is completely irrelevant. 
 
(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.
 Opposite trap – this is a strengthener, if anything. If there’s only a tiny percentage of these new houses then there is a more the reason to believe that the property damage decrease would be marginal. 
 
(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.
 Out of scope – the costs have nothing to do with the immediate argument/conclusion. We want to weaken the point that sprinklers -> marginal decrease in prop. damage from residential fire
 
(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.
 Out of scope – we’re concerned with sprinklers and its applicability to property damage (by residential fires). It doesn’t matter how (and how quickly) the fire extinguished by another entity. 
 
(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.
 Bingo, this shows that the property damage and percentage of residential fires aren’t necessarily correlates. The largest proportion of damage actually comes from the smaller subset of the population that doesn’t have any household member present – the 10%.

kntombat · Answer

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?

(A) Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires. (For a moment, I thought that this could be the answer and marked it as a contender but on coming across answer E, I ruled this out immediately.)

(B) Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope. (Out of scope, no one is talking about the scope of the new ordinance.)

(C) The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers. (Out of scope, smoke detectors haven't been mentioned in the stimulus.)

(D) In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average. (Opposite Answer, the home builder can state this point as a reason against installing sprinklers.)

(E) The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present. (this our answer, as this counters the home builder's point perfectly and weakens his argument .)

The OA is E.

Thank you.

stackskillz · Answer

This is the quick solution I came up with:

Conc: Residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

(A)  Most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.  - Can co-exist with the conclusion above. No need to think too much.  Drop

(B)  Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope -  This actually strengthens the argument. Since, only a small sliver of housing in the city will have the sprinklers and since 90% of fires are extinguished by household members, sprinklers might be an ineffective addition.  Drop

(C)  The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers -  We are specifically talking about the necessity of sprinklers and preventing property damage caused by fire. Whether smoke detectors are cheaper or not doesn't impact the conclusion.  Drop

(D)  In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average -  The speed of response of the fire dept. could be a magnitude better or worse than national average, however, it's still entirely possible that sprinklers are not that effective since they are not needed most of the time. This option actually tries to suggest that sprinklers are not needed, since fire-depts. are very responsive. Not what we're looking for (and not what you want to hear from your fire safety inspector).  Drop

(E)  The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.  Hits the bulls-eye. If the largest proportion of property damage results when no household member is present, the sprinklers look like a welcome addition. Also notice, that the conclusion talks about property damage but substantiates the claims with number of fires extinguished. Those 2 are related, but not the same. This option gives us a reason ,i.e., fires in unattended houses cause the most damage.  Keep

agrasan · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   KarishmaB

Could you please explain why option A is not correct?
Our confidence should be reduced if most individuals are not formally trained to extinguish fires.

KarishmaB · Answer

It is irrelevant that people are not formally trained.
We are given in the argument "more than 90 percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member"
We know that even without formal training they are able to extinguish the fire so it doesn't matter whether they have training or not. Perhaps its a skill passed on from generation to generation, we don't care. As long as they are able to extinguish fires, its fine - we don't need sprinklers.

The problem is that most damage is caused by fires that start when no one is present - say in case of short circuit. Then they need to be managed using sprinklers. Hence this weakens that sprinklers are not important.

Answer (E)

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl

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

A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinkl

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