Mayor A: In 1982 the courthouse that Roseville still needs would have

Question

Mayor A: In 1982 the courthouse that Roseville still needs would have cost 26 million. Now in 1992 the same building is costing the city close to 30 million to build. If it had been built in 1982 when I first showed how the building would relieve the overcrowding, Roseville would have saved at least 4 million by now.

Councillor B: Your own financial reports inform us that 26 million in 1982 is equivalent to 37 million in 1992. Adding that difference to the money Roseville has saved by not having to maintain an under-used courthose for a decade, we can only view the delay as a financial boom for Roseville.

A point at issue between Mayor A and Councillor B is whether

A. Roseville will build a courthourse in 1992
B. 37 million in 1992 dollars is equivalent to 26 million in 1992
C. Mayor A is responsible for the city's financial reports
D. Roseville actually needed a new courthouse between 1982 and 1992
E. Roseville would have expended 4 million dollars to maintain a courthouse from 1982 to 1992

Weekend Verbal Challenge Question! 
 https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=66410

armaankumar · Answer

Can someone provide an explanation for this question?

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  armaankumar . I would be happy to help. Note that our task is to identify  a point at issue . What do A and B disagree on in the dialogue?

The argument A puts forth is straightforward: If the courthouse had been built in 1982, a decade earlier, then the town  would have saved at least 4 million , since the cost to build  the same building  has gone up. Note that there is an assertion that  the building would relieve... overcrowding .

B counters by mentioning inflation, so the 30 million figure from before is actually  equivalent to 37 million , in addition to maintenance costs for  an under-used courthouse for a decade . The argument is that  the delay  in construction has been beneficial to the town. (I am not sure if  boom  should be  boon  instead, but I suspect as much.)

The main point of contention is whether the courthouse would have helped the town had it been built ten years ago.

The issue is not whether a courthouse will be built, but whether it should have been built in the past. B does not discuss the current project at all.

There is a subtle distinction here that I will outline using the  exact  language of the passage:

A: The courthouse would have cost 26 million in 1982. Now in 1992 the same building is costing the city close to 30 million.
B: 26 million in 1982 is equivalent to 37 million in 1992.

A is talking about cost only, not any sort of  equivalence  in the figures when adjusted for inflation. It is only B who broaches the topic, and B states that the financial reports  written by A   inform us that 26 million in 1982 is equivalent to 37 million in 1992 . In other words, A knows that 26 million in the past is 37 million at the time the dialogue unfolds. This is not  a point at issue .

Either this is completely irrelevant—who is to say whether A is  responsible  for (producing?) the financial reports?—or, looking at the same line that we did just above, we can say that B acknowledges that A had produced these reports. I have trouble seeing how this answer choice could even enter the picture here.

Simply put, A was pro-courthouse in 1982 and continues to defend that earlier proposal, while B, at present, argues that the courthouse would have been a decade-long financial burden had it been built. A states that the courthouse would have helped ease  overcrowding ; B says the courthouse would have been  under-used . Yes, whether the town  needed a new courthouse  in the decade in question lies at the heart of the debate, and this must be our answer.

If you run some quick calculations on the figures from A alone, namely 30 - 26, and somehow apply the difference to the maintenance costs that B mentions, even though the 30 and 26 are both costs  to build  the courthouse, then I suppose this could be an attractive option. But the specificity of the figure works against it here: B never speculates how much it would have cost the town to maintain the courthouse, suggesting instead only that it would have been a waste of money.

Watch the language used in the passage carefully, and do not be afraid to get behind an answer choice that seems obvious. The best answer is the one you have the hardest time arguing against.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Dbrunik · Answer

Mayor A’s argument implies that the courthouse was needed back in 1982 to alleviate overcrowding, suggesting that it should have been built then. Councillor B, however, refers to the courthouse as one that would have been “under-used” for a decade if built earlier, implying that it was not actually needed during that period. Thus, the two disagree on whether there was a genuine need for the new courthouse between 1982 and 1992.

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.

Mayor A: In 1982 the courthouse that Roseville still needs would have

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

Mayor A: In 1982 the courthouse that Roseville still needs would have

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