In the past decade, floods along certain coastal regions of the Unite

Question

﻿In the past decade, floods along certain coastal regions of the United States caused by severe storms resulted in extraordinary property damage and unprecedented costs for property owners and insurance companies. Meteorologists predict that the number of such storms will increase significantly during the next decade. Therefore, property damage caused by coastal storms is likely to cost property owners and insurance companies significantly more money in the next decade than in the past decade.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Severe storms that cause flooding in the coastal regions usually occur in the springtime.

B. Regional economic trends are attracting increasing numbers of people into these coastal regions.

C. Although storms are likely to increase in frequency over the next decade, the severity of storms is not expected to increase.

D. In areas where flooding was the worst, property owners chose to move rather than rebuild in the same location.

E. Building codes in many coastal communities have increased the required distance between the shoreline and newly constructed residences.

gmatophobia · Accepted Answer

Conclusion of the argument  : Property damage caused by coastal storms is likely to cost property owners and insurance companies significantly more money in the next decade than in the past decade.

Support Provided  : Severe storms resulted in extraordinary property damage and unprecedented costs for property owners and insurance companies. Meteorologists predict that the number of such storms will increase significantly during the next decade.

We have to strengthen this argument in line with the author's reasoning/support provided for the conclusion.

A. Severe storms that cause flooding in the coastal regions usually occur in the springtime.

The conclusion doesn't depend on what time of the year the floods occur. Hence, we can eliminate this option.

B. Regional economic trends are attracting increasing numbers of people into these coastal regions.

This is a good one. If more people are attracted to the coastal regions, it's likely they will be impacted by the severe storms. We already know from the premise that meteorologists predict that the number of such storms will increase significantly during the next decade. Hence, an increasing number of people is likely to be impacted. The greater the number of people impacted, the greater will be the damage caused. Hence, property damage caused by coastal storms is likely to cost property owners and insurance companies significantly more money in the next decade than in the past decade. We can keep this option.

C. Although storms are likely to increase in frequency over the next decade, the severity of storms is not expected to increase.

This option goes against the conclusion and weakens it. We have to support the conclusion that property damage caused by coastal storms is likely to cost property owners and insurance companies significantly more money in the next decade than in the past decade.

D. In areas where flooding was the worst, property owners chose to move rather than rebuild in the same location.

This option doesn't support the conclusion or at best weakens it. If the property owners do not choose to settle in the areas where flooding was the worst, they will not likely be impacted greatly by the subsequent storms. Hence, the property damage in the next decade will not be greater than that of the previous decade. We can eliminate this option.

E. Building codes in many coastal communities have increased the required distance between the shoreline and newly constructed residences.

We don't have sufficient information to asses how will this affect the property owners. One way to reason out is if the distance between the shoreline has increased the home are farther away from shore and hence, the damage is likely to be less in the future. Hence, the statement weakens the argument. However, we can't be 100% sure of this conclusion. We can however be sure that this option lends no support to the author's conclusion. We can eliminate this option.

Option B

Paras96 · Answer

The argument claims that property damage caused by coastal storms is likely to cost property owners and insurance companies significantly more money in the next decade than in the past decade, primarily due to an increase in the number of severe storms. To strengthen this argument, we need information that makes it more likely that an increase in the number of severe storms will indeed result in significantly higher costs for property owners and insurance companies.

Let's evaluate each answer choice:

A. Severe storms that cause flooding in the coastal regions usually occur in the springtime.
 - This information about the timing of the storms does not directly strengthen the argument concerning the increase in costs. It provides a detail about when the storms typically occur but does not address the expected increase in costs.

B. Regional economic trends are attracting increasing numbers of people into these coastal regions.
 - This information suggests that the population in these coastal regions is increasing, which could lead to higher property values and more properties at risk. This supports the argument that property damage costs are likely to increase in the next decade.

C. Although storms are likely to increase in frequency over the next decade, the severity of storms is not expected to increase.
 - This information weakens the argument because it suggests that while the number of storms may increase, their severity is not expected to increase. This could mean that the overall impact of these storms may not be significantly worse in the next decade.

D. In areas where flooding was the worst, property owners chose to move rather than rebuild in the same location.
 - This information suggests that some property owners chose to relocate rather than rebuild, but it does not directly strengthen the argument about the expected increase in costs.

E. Building codes in many coastal communities have increased the required distance between the shoreline and newly constructed residences.
 - This information could potentially strengthen the argument by implying that new construction in coastal areas is being regulated to minimize exposure to storm-related damage. However, it doesn't directly address the increase in costs due to an increase in the number of severe storms.

Among the options, choice (B) is the most relevant and directly supports the argument by indicating that more people are moving into coastal regions, potentially leading to higher property damage costs in the next decade.

GmatKnightTutor · Answer

﻿In the past decade, floods along certain coastal regions of the United States caused by severe storms resulted in extraordinary property damage and unprecedented costs for property owners and insurance companies. Meteorologists predict that the number of such storms will increase significantly during the next decade. Therefore, property damage caused by coastal storms is likely to cost property owners and insurance companies significantly more money in the next decade than in the past decade.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Severe storms that cause flooding in the coastal regions usually occur in the springtime.

B. Regional economic trends are attracting increasing numbers of people into these coastal regions.

C. Although storms are likely to increase in frequency over the next decade, the severity of storms is not expected to increase.

D. In areas where flooding was the worst, property owners chose to move rather than rebuild in the same location.

E. Building codes in many coastal communities have increased the required distance between the shoreline and newly constructed residences.

The passage says that floods have caused a lot of property damage in specific coastal areas over the last 10 years in the US. That it's predicted that there will be significantly more storms over the next 10 years. And that this will result in costing property owners and insurance companies a lot more.

(B) is the answer. If more people move to an area that gets repeatedly flooded, there will be more property owners and insurance companies with policyholders affected in that area who will be faced with either repairing or paying out insurance for the damage. The cost of the damage will be higher than if the number of people was lower.

-contact: gmatknight site | gmatclub dm

Gemmie · Answer

To strengthen the argument that property damage caused by coastal storms is likely to increase significantly in the next decade, we need to find a statement that provides additional support for this prediction based on the premises given in the passage.

Let's analyze each option:

A.  Severe storms that cause flooding in the coastal regions usually occur in the springtime.

This statement provides information about the timing of the storms but does not directly strengthen the prediction about increased property damage and costs in the next decade.

B.  Regional economic trends are attracting increasing numbers of people into these coastal regions.

This suggests a potential increase in population density in coastal regions, leading to more properties at risk from coastal storms. This could result in higher property damage and costs, thus strengthening the argument.

C.  Although storms are likely to increase in frequency over the next decade, the severity of storms is not expected to increase.

This weakens the argument because if storms are more frequent but not more severe, the overall property damage may not necessarily increase significantly.

D.  In areas where flooding was the worst, property owners chose to move rather than rebuild in the same location.

While relocation is a consequence, it doesn't predict future damage costs..

E.  Building codes in many coastal communities have increased the required distance between the shoreline and newly constructed residences.

This suggests that newer constructions are better protected against coastal storms, potentially reducing future property damage. Hence, it weakens the argument.

nosaj · Answer

Agree with all the responses and logic above. Overall,
- Wrong Answers: there are 2-3 depending on interpretation which do the OPPOSITE of what the question stem is asking us (i.e, weaken the argument) - Answer Choices - C, D, E. In regards to Answer Choice A, this seems to general to be relevant to the argument with wording like 'usually occur'.
- Correct Answer: Answer Choice B because it means more people & homes would be affected and that COST for property owners and insurance companies would go up

Additional thoughts (hopefully additive to above and the explanations here):
- There is a cause and effect relationship here - More severe storms (cause) --> floods (effect) | floods (cause) --> increase cost to property owners/insurers (effect). Important to recognise this across questions.

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.

In the past decade, floods along certain coastal regions of the Unite

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 the past decade, floods along certain coastal regions of the Unite

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