An environmental engineer and land developer conducted a brown-field r

Question

An environmental engineer and land developer conducted a brown-field reclamation estimate on a former automotive plant near downtown Chicago. As a result of the engineer’s findings, an international Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) purchased the land with the intention of reclaiming the land and building condos on it within the next two years. Unfortunately, the REIT discovered that the cost to reclaim the land was actually three times the engineer’s estimate. Therefore, the methodology employed by the engineer to estimate the reclamation costs must have been faulty.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) Though more expensive than originally thought, the reclamation still would have resulted in a profitable development.
B) The environmental engineer did not study other reclamation sites and use the same methodology to estimate costs.
C) The REIT had successfully reclaimed land in other developments during the past few years.
D) A third party determined that the REIT’s methodology for determining the cost to reclaim the brown-field site was more accurate than that used by the environmental engineer.
E) The engineer and land developer did not purposefully misrepresent the cost to reclaim the development site.

jaisonsunny77 · Accepted Answer

Type: find the assumption

Conclusion:  the methodology  employed by the engineer to estimate the reclamation costs  must have been faulty. 
  
A) Though more expensive than originally thought, the reclamation still would have resulted in a profitable development.  -  does not help establish the conclusion.   
B) The environmental engineer did not study other reclamation sites and use the same methodology to estimate costs.  -  the truth of this statement is irrelevant to the conclusion cited.   
C) The REIT had successfully reclaimed land in other developments during the past few years.  -  irrelevant to the conclusion cited.  
 D) A third party determined that the REIT’s methodology for determining the cost to reclaim the brown-field site was more accurate than that used by the environmental engineer.  -  this would imply that both estimates were correct, but the REIT's estimate was more accurate than the engineer's estimate. (D) therefore does not help establish the conclusion.  
 E) The engineer and land developer did not purposefully misrepresent the cost to reclaim the development site. - if this were not true, it would imply that intentional changes were made to the estimate. If intentional changes were made, one cannot claim that the methodology used to obtain the estimate is ''wrong''. But, if (E) is true, then it would imply that the methodology was indeed faulty. Hence, (E) is required to establish the conclusion. Therefore,  (E) is the right answer choice.

IanStewart · Answer

Essentially, the argument uses a lot of needlessly complicated language to say that the engineer and land developer came up with a cost estimate that was far too low. If we're going to accuse them of using a bad methodology, we're assuming they weren't lying about the cost estimate they came up with, so E is right.

Rachit4126 · Answer

The way I see it
This argument has a missing piece, it never blamed the land developer because he was also involved in arriving at the estimates.

Option E fills that gap. Says, that land developer was not involved in fudging the data, hence engineer alone to be blamed.

Posted from my mobile device

coreyander · Answer

Option (E) says that both Engineer and land developer were not involved in fudging the data.

coreyander · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Identify the Question Type:

The word “assumption” in the stem indicates that this is an Assumption question.

Untangle the Stimulus:

The word “therefore” signals the conclusion in the last sentence: the engineer’s methodology for the cost of reclaiming land was faulty. The evidence is that the cost for the REIT to reclaim the land was triple the engineer’s estimate.

Predict the Answer:

Faulty methodology is certainly a possible reason for the engineer’s bad estimate, but the author never demonstrates that it’s the only possible reason. The author must take for granted that nothing else besides a faulty methodology could have produced the engineer’s bad estimate.

Evaluate the Choices:

(E) matches the prediction and is correct. It rules out an alternate explanation for the bad estimate: that the engineer knew exactly what the cost would be and simply lied about it.

(A) is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the reclamation will be profitable; What matters is whether the engineer’s methodology was faulty or not.

(B) is an irrelevant comparison. Whether or not the engineer’s methodology was used multiples times has no bearing on whether that methodology is faulty.

(C) is also irrelevant, since any site other than the one in question is beside the point.

(D) merely confirms that the REIT's estimate is more accurate than the engineer's. This is irrelevant, since the argument is about why the engineer's report is inaccurate, and this doesn't explain that.

TAKEAWAY: Whenever an author argues that one thing must be the explanation for another, the assumption is always the same: that there are no other possible explanations.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

A) Though more expensive than originally thought, the reclamation still would have resulted in a profitable development.
This does not affect the intended outcome therefore out

B) The environmental engineer did not study other reclamation sites and use the same methodology to estimate costs.
Whether the techniques were perfect or not dabatable and if there was some wrong formulaes in previous method then we cannot blame the engineers

C) The REIT had successfully reclaimed land in other developments during the past few years.
This is out context and doesn't have the slightest impact

D) A third party determined that the REIT’s methodology for determining the cost to reclaim the brown-field site was more accurate than that used by the environmental engineer.
Third party or not is not our concern

E) The engineer and land developer did not purposefully misrepresent the cost to reclaim the development site.
If they had purposefully misinterpreted then definitely the thing is not a mistake therefore for us this part has to be correct

Therefore IMO E

IanStewart · Answer

I received a PM asking me to comment on answer D. The "Official Explanation" doesn't discuss D correctly. They seem to dismiss D because it "doesn't explain" why the engineer's report might be inaccurate, but the question doesn't ask us to explain anything. It asks for an assumption, so it's asking for an unstated premise of the argument, something that is unsaid but that must be true for the argument to hold. And as long as we know (as the argument tells us) as a premise that the REIT discovered the cost was much higher than the engineer estimated, we don't need to assume anything about how the REIT determined that. Maybe the REIT assessed the cost themselves, or maybe they sought estimates from contractors, or maybe they brought in a third party -- it doesn't matter, because we know as a premise that they discovered the cost was much higher than anticipated. So D is not an assumption here, and is not the right answer.

A_Nishith · Answer

The argument hinges on the conclusion that the environmental engineer's methodology for estimating reclamation costs must have been faulty, based on the significant discrepancy between the initial estimate and the actual cost. To support this conclusion, the argument depends on an assumption that rules out other possible reasons for the underestimation.

Let’s evaluate each option to see which one captures an essential assumption of the argument.

Option Analysis
A) Though more expensive than originally thought, the reclamation still would have resulted in a profitable development.

This option addresses profitability rather than the accuracy of the engineer’s estimate or methodology. The profitability of the project does not impact the argument about the methodology's accuracy, so this is irrelevant.

B) The environmental engineer did not study other reclamation sites and use the same methodology to estimate costs.

This option provides background on how the engineer might have approached the estimate, but it does not directly address whether the engineer's specific methodology was flawed or not. The fact that the engineer used or didn’t use data from other sites does not logically affect the conclusion about faultiness.

C) The REIT had successfully reclaimed land in other developments during the past few years.

While this may add context, it doesn’t provide evidence regarding the accuracy or faultiness of the engineer’s estimation methodology. Past success in other developments does not directly impact the argument here.

D) A third party determined that the REIT’s methodology for determining the cost to reclaim the brown-field site was more accurate than that used by the environmental engineer.

This option strengthens the argument by supporting the REIT’s assessment of higher costs, but it doesn’t directly address whether the engineer’s methodology was flawed; it simply offers another perspective on accuracy.

E) The engineer and land developer did not purposefully misrepresent the cost to reclaim the development site.

Correct Answer:  This option is essential to the argument. If the engineer or developer had intentionally misrepresented the cost, the discrepancy might not be due to a flawed methodology but rather due to a deliberate understatement. Therefore, the argument that the methodology was faulty relies on the assumption that the estimate was made in good faith and without intentional misrepresentation.

Conclusion
 The correct answer is E , as it provides the necessary assumption that the engineer's methodology (and not deliberate misrepresentation) is to blame for the inaccurate estimate.

An environmental engineer and land developer conducted a brown-field r

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

An environmental engineer and land developer conducted a brown-field r

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