In Country X, landowners are effectively insured against natural disas

Question

In Country X, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters, because the government subsidizes all property repairs by providing emergency relief after the disasters. This subsidy is the reason for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands, argues an actuary. The subsidy gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster.

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

(A) The repair cost for natural disasters, adjusted for inflation, was lower before the government began subsidizing owners against natural disasters than it is now.

(B) Before the government began subsidizing property repairs, landowners were just as likely to build on disaster-prone lands as they are now.

(C) A significant percentage of owners know that their properties are subsidized by the government, according to surveys.

(D) There is a cap on the repair cost of any owner’s property that the government will subsidize, but very few owners’ properties are worth more than this limit.

(E) The risk of damage from natural disasters that a particular property faces can be determined by looking at the history of natural disasters at that property and nearby properties.

RJ7X0DefiningMyX · Answer

Given it's a weaken question, we need to pre-think a situation which will weaken the actuary's argument, i.e. the government subsidy is the reason for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands

So, we've to pre-think WHAT EXTRA INFORMATION could prove that the government subsidy is  NOT  the reason for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands

Let's think...what if the lands where people built their houses were ancestral lands and no matter if the government subsidize the damage due to disasters or not, people might still be (very) reluctant to leave those properties and move elsewhere? (you might not come up exactly with such a pre-thought, but if you're somewhere on similar lines, you're absolutely fine)

Now with this, let's look at the answer choices:

A quick glance and we can see that (B) conveys exactly what we had thought and is very well in-line with our pre-thinking:

Before the government began subsidizing property repairs, landowners were just as likely to build on disaster-prone lands as they are now   which shows that regardless of whether the government subsidized property repairs or not, for SOME reason, they still had been building houses on the same land and although the government subsidies have helped them, it is NOT the reason why they continue to do so...they're just doing what they've been doing so since always.

HIT KUDOS IF YOU LIKE MY SOLUTION

TheNightKing · Answer

I usually read the question first just to make my mind accordingly. We have to weaken "This subsidy is the reason for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands, argues an actuary".
A. It did not make much sense to me so I thought to visit later.
B. If this is true then the whole point conclusion goes for a toss. It is like If you were going to buy A anyway then there could be no argument of what influenced you to do it in the first place. Seems like a good answer choice.
C. It is a fact but it does not make an impact on the conclusion.
D. By mentioning few owners' the option becomes weak.
E. I really don't need to consider what determines the risk of natural disasters.

Note : did not go back to option A because B was far too convincing. (This should be avoided)
Kudos if you like my approach.

DarleneTran · Answer

In Country X, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters, because the government subsidizes all property repairs by providing emergency relief after the disasters. This subsidy is the reason for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands, argues an actuary. The subsidy gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster.
---->The argument's logic is that the government subsidised for damaged houses in disaster-prone lands. The actuary argued that governmental subsidy explained for the high percentage of houses built in such lands.
So, the correct answer has to weaken that governmental subsidy might not become the reason of increasing percentage of house built.

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

(A) The repair cost for natural disasters, adjusted for inflation, was lower before the government began subsidizing owners against natural disasters than it is now.--->Out of scope, when comparing to the logic of the argument, there is no info mentioned about the cost of repairing the houses.

(B) Before the government began subsidizing property repairs, landowners were just as likely to build on disaster-prone lands as they are now.---->After applying POE; this is what we have left.

(C) A significant percentage of owners know that their properties are subsidized by the government, according to surveys.--->This is the strengthening answer. Reverse logic

(D) There is a cap on the repair cost of any owner’s property that the government will subsidize, but very few owners’ properties are worth more than this limit.--->Out of scope,

(E) The risk of damage from natural disasters that a particular property faces can be determined by looking at the history of natural disasters at that property and nearby properties.--->Out of scope, this new info doesn't bring any effect to the logic of the argument.

sant13osh · Answer

B. Before the government began subsidizing property repairs, landowners were just as likely to build on disaster-prone lands as they are now.

Can some one please explain where I am thinking wrong. I eliminated choice B because the argument says that  subsidy is the reason for the high percentage of houses built . If the percentage increased how can this choice be correct saying that  landowners were just as likely to build ... lands as they are now .

cc -  GMATNinja  /  GMATNinja two/  nightblade354

nightblade354 · Answer

As I have said many times, Kaplan questions should be avoided. They are poor quality questions that do not accurately reflect GMAC standards.

Nrj0601 · Answer

OFFICIAL KAPLAN EXPLANATION

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

This is a Weaken question. The correct choice will make it less likely that the actuary's conclusion follows from the stated evidence.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus

According to the actuary, government natural disaster relief is the reason for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands. Her evidence is that due to the subsidy, landowners have no financial incentive to evaluate the land’s risk before building on it.

Step 3: Predict the Answer

The correct choice will attack the connection between the actuary's evidence and conclusion. It will suggest that the subsidy is not the reason for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone land, even though the subsidy removes the landowners incentive to evaluate the risk.

Step 4: Evaluate the Choices

(B) attacks the actuary's reasoning, and is correct. If landowners were just as likely to build on disaster-prone lands before the subsidies existed, then it is less likely that the subsidies have anything to do with the high percentage of houses built on those lands now.

(A) is a 180. If repair costs are higher now, then it is more likely that the subsidies remove the incentive to evaluate the land, and it is therefore more likely that the subsidies explain the high percentage of houses built on these lands.

(C) is also a 180. Owners who know about the subsidies are less likely to evaluate the risk of the land. It is more likely that the subsidies explain the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands.

(D) is tempting at first, because a cap on the subsidy might make a landowner think twice about building on disaster-prone land, and thus the subsidy would be less likely to explain the high percentage of houses built on such land. But (D) goes on to say that the cap is high enough to cover repairs on almost all properties. (D) therefore doesn't weaken the actuary’s argument.

(E) just describes how risk may be determined. This is irrelevant to the actuary‘s argument, which is about why landowners don’t bother evaluating the risk in the first place.

TAKEAWAY: With Weaken questions, keep the focus on the connection between the stated evidence and the conclusion. Don't forget that the task is to attack that connection. That will make it easier to avoid wrong choices.

In Country X, landowners are effectively insured against natural disas

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

In Country X, landowners are effectively insured against natural disas

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