Earlier this year, our citys three main reservoirs had unusually

Question

Earlier this year, our city’s three main reservoirs had unusually low water levels. As a result, city officials initiated a program that encouraged residents to reduce their water usage by 20 percent. Since the program was announced, the water level at all three reservoirs has returned to normal. Our city officials should be applauded for their role in preventing a crisis.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the efficacy of the officials’ program?

(A) The current water level in the reservoirs is lower than it was at the same time last year.

(B) Other nearby reservoirs recovered from lower water levels this year, even though those reservoirs provide water to cities that did not enact water restriction policies.

(C) Residents reduced their water usage for lawn maintenance significantly more than they did for washing clothes.

(D) Imposing stiff penalties on residents who did not conserve water would have resulted in even higher water levels in the reservoirs.

(E) Water usage in the city dropped steadily during the first two weeks of the program before leveling off.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE 
The question stem asks for something that reduces the likelihood that the officials’ program was effective. Thus, this is a Weaken question.

STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUS 
The city officials instituted a program that called for reduced water usage, and the water levels did return to normal. The author concludes that the water reduction program was responsible for this result.

STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWER 
This a classic example of an unsupported cause-and-effect argument. The author assumes that the program caused the levels to return to normal and that nothing else was responsible. Your prediction should be along the lines of “something other than the program led to the increased water level.”

STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES 
(B) matches this prediction. It doesn’t outright state what the other factor was. However, if other reservoirs in the area recovered without a water usage program in place, then some other factor must have been involved. (A) makes an irrelevant comparison between this year and last year. Even if last year’s levels were higher, it’s still possible that the program helped the reservoirs return to normal this year. (C) is another irrelevant comparison: as long as people reduced water usage overall, the program still could have worked. (D) suggests that there could have been a more effective plan, but that doesn’t mean that the city officials’ plan was ineffective. And the timing of the drop in water usage, in (E), does not affect the argument that the plan caused the reduction and that this reduction caused reservoir levels to rise.

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.

Earlier this year, our citys three main reservoirs had unusually

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

Earlier this year, our citys three main reservoirs had unusually

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