Traditionally, the foundations of houses were made of concrete. A buil

Question

Competition Mode Question

Traditionally, the foundations of houses were made of concrete. A builder is experimenting with using a hard plastic polymer for foundations. A foundation made with the polymer is about the same price to construct and install as is concrete foundation. Unlike concrete, the polymer will block all water flow and is not prone to cracking with age. The builder argues that houses built with the polymer foundation will last longer.

Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?

Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?

A. Whether repairs to polymer foundations are more expensive than repairs to concrete foundations.

B. Whether soil acidity, to which all stone is resistant, can dissolve the polymer.

C. How dry the soil in this region becomes during typical summer droughts.

D. Whether residents will be able to smell the vapors that outgas from the polymer.

E. Whether consumers seeking to buy a house will trust a house with an alternate foundation.

unraveled · Answer

Traditionally, the foundations of houses were made of concrete. A builder is experimenting with using a hard plastic polymer for foundations. A foundation made with the polymer is about the same price to construct and install as is concrete foundation. Unlike concrete, the polymer will block all water flow and is not prone to cracking with age. The builder argues that houses built with the polymer foundation will last longer.

Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?

Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?

Premise: Builder replacing TCF with PPF. The price of construction an installation of PPF is same as that of TCF. Also, PPF blocks all water flow and is not prone to cracks with age.
Conclusion: Builder argues that PPF houses will last longer.

Note: To last longer PPF has to stay intact for very long time. As water flow does not affect PPF and it does not develops cracks, there must be something that one or the other way causes damage to PPF.

A. Whether repairs to polymer foundations are more expensive than repairs to concrete foundations. - WRONG. Although it goes against the premise from price point but repair cost is not at all discussed in the passage. At best it does nothing to either the premise or the conclusion since cost of construction and installation remain same and higher repair cost doesn't impact the PPF's longer life.

B. Whether soil acidity, to which all stone is resistant, can dissolve the polymer. - CORRECT. There's new parameter that might impact the PPF in ways which breaks the conclusion apart. If PPF does not cracks great but what if it dissolves - in that case it won't last long.

C. How dry the soil in this region becomes during typical summer droughts. - WRONG. Dryness may have a linkage with water but more drier it is more irrelevant the argument becomes. So, this option does not affects the conclusion. Out of scope.

D. Whether residents will be able to smell the vapors that outgas from the polymer. - WRONG. Again smelling the outgas from polymer is out of scope as it does not affects the conclusion of PPF's longer life, not at least in ways as discussed in the passage.

E. Whether consumers seeking to buy a house will trust a house with an alternate foundation. - WRONG. Just like C and D this is also out of scope. Even if consumers don't buy the life of PPF house is longer.

IMO Answer B.

exc4libur · Answer

arg
=polymer x concrete lasts longer
=bc it blocks all water and wont crack

evaluate: "lasts longer"
(A) irrelevant, this doesn't evaluate polymers life cycle
(C) irev
(D) irev
(E) irev

ans (B) if polymer dissolves in soil acid then, it wont last longer, arg falls… if poly doesnt dissolve, then it does last longer and arg stands.

anupam87 · Answer

Traditionally, the foundations of houses were made of concrete. A builder is experimenting with using a hard plastic polymer for foundations. A foundation made with the polymer is about the same price to construct and install as is concrete foundation. Unlike concrete, the polymer will block all water flow and is not prone to cracking with age. The builder argues that houses built with the polymer foundation will last longer.

Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?

Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?

Conclusion – houses built with polymer foundation will last longer. 
Premise – Hard plastic polymer will block all water flow and is not prone to cracking with age.

A. Whether repairs to polymer foundations are more expensive than repairs to concrete foundations. – the cost of repair does not impact the conclusion. The conclusion here is about how long the polymer foundation will last.

B. Whether soil acidity, to which all stone is resistant, can dissolve the polymer. – this is the correct answer.

Lets say - “soil acidity can dissolve the polymer” – this weakens the conclusion
 “soil acidity cannot dissolve the polymer” – this strengthens the conclusion

Based on the above mentioned duality, this is the correct answer.

C. How dry the soil in this region becomes during typical summer droughts.

This does not have any impact on the conclusion. We do not know how the dryness of the soil will impact the polymer.

D. Whether residents will be able to smell the vapors that outgas from the polymer.

Though this is one reason why residents might avoid the polymer, but this does not help us decide whether the polymer will last longer.

E. Whether consumers seeking to buy a house will trust a house with an alternate foundation. – trust of the customers are not in the scope of this argument.

Acme · Answer

Question type : Evaluate
Conclusion: houses built with the polymer foundation will last longer
premise :Unlike concrete, the polymer will block all water flow and is not prone to cracking with age

Assumption: There are no other factors that affect the polymer not the concrete.

A. Whether repairs to polymer foundations are more expensive than repairs to concrete foundation -- Incorrect conclusion not related to money

B. Whether soil acidity, to which all stone is resistant, can dissolve the polymer.--  Correct  questioning the assumption

C. How dry the soil in this region becomes during typical summer droughts. -- Incorrect as there is no enough information on how this affects concrete or polymer

D. Whether residents will be able to smell the vapors that outgas from the polymer.--Incorrect out of scope

E. Whether consumers seeking to buy a house will trust a house with an alternate foundation.--Incorrect out of scope

MayankSingh · Answer

IMO B

1)A foundation made with the polymer is about the same price to construct and install as is concrete foundation. 
2)Unlike concrete, the polymer will block all water flow and is not prone to cracking with age.

Conclusion : The builder argues that houses built with the polymer foundation will last longer.

B. Whether soil acidity, to which all stone is resistant, can dissolve the polymer. 
  Yes -   Soil Acidity can dissolve the polymer - In this case, the  conclusion  that houses built with polymer will last longer is  weakened .
  No  - Soil acidity cannot dissolve the polymer - In this case, the  conclusion  that houses built with polymer will last longer  holds true .

Kartikay22 · Answer

If the answer to option B is "yes",then it will break the conclusion.
If the answer to Option B is "No", then it furthers our belief in the conclusion.
This makes it the correct assumption.
Answer -  Option B

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The argument’s conclusion is quite specifically: the houses with the polymer foundation will last longer. That’s the specific issue, the issue of which lasts longer. The credited answer is (B), because if the soil acidity dissolves the polymer, that foundation will not last as long as the concrete.

Choice (A) gets into financial considerations, which would be a concern for homeowners, but even if one type of foundation is more expensive than the other to repair, that doesn’t tell us anything about how frequently either needs to be repaired or how long either might last.

Choice (C) is a strange distractor: the prompt mentions water flow, which might seep through concrete, but in drought months, there would be no water flow. Both foundations would be bone dry. Knowing the answer to this question would tell us nothing about how long each type of foundation will last.

Choice (D) gets into a quality-of-life issue, and indeed folks living in the house might not like the smell, might sue the builder, etc. etc., but none of that affects the central issue: how long will the foundation last?

Choice (E) gets into another economic issue: will people buy these houses or not? Will people trust these foundations? Whether folks trust them or not, and whether the houses sell at high prices or at bargain low prices, do not affect the fundamental issue: how long the foundation will last.

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.

Traditionally, the foundations of houses were made of concrete. A buil

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

Traditionally, the foundations of houses were made of concrete. A buil

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