Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
16 Feb 2024, 10:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
75% (02:01) correct
25%
(02:12)
wrong
based on 1152
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Phoenix, in the southwestern United States, has grown from an agricultural community to a city of more than 1.5 million residents. One consequence is that the average temperatures in the area have risen significantly: buildings and city streets are absorbing greater amounts of the sun's radiant energy and retaining more heat. This phenomenon is known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These increased temperatures have led to increased water use for residential lawns and gardens. To conserve the city's limited water supplies by reducing the average area of garden and lawn around homes, city planners should require that residential lot sizes in new construction be smaller.
The recommendation above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
The recommendation above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- (A) takes for granted that reducing the size of residential lots would reduce the UHI effect and thus reduce water consumption
(B) takes for granted that the UHI effect is the main environmental challenge faced by the city of Phoenix
(C) fails to consider that there are ways of obtaining additional reductions in water consumption
(D) fails to envisage the possibility that many Phoenix residents may be opposed to the plan
(E) fails to consider the possible impact on water consumption if having a smaller proportion of grassy area were to increase the UHI effect
Using official mocks already?
Add GMAT Club Tests for harder practice, analytics, and explanations without overlapping Official Guide or official mock questions.
Try it now →
16 Feb 2024, 10:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
Explanation
Phoenix, in the southwestern United States, has grown from an agricultural community to a city of more than 1.5 million residents. One consequence is that the average temperatures in the area have risen significantly: buildings and city streets are absorbing greater amounts of the sun's radiant energy and retaining more heat. This phenomenon is known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These increased temperatures have led to increased water use for residential lawns and gardens. To conserve the city's limited water supplies by reducing the average area of garden and lawn around homes, city planners should require that residential lot sizes in new construction be smaller.
We see that this question is a Plan question that has an implied conclusion. The implied conclusion is the following:
The recommendation above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
The correct answer will present a flaw in the recommendation, which may involve something that the author has assumed but could involve something the author has missed.
(A) takes for granted that reducing the size of residential lots would reduce the UHI effect and thus reduce water consumption
The recommendation involves the idea that reducing the size of lots would serve to reduce water consumption through serving to reduce the average area of garden and lawn around homes.
So, water consumption would be reduced through a reduction in lawn and garden area, an outcome that doesn't require a reduction in the UHI effect.
Thus, the recommendation does not take for granted that "reducing the size of residential lots would reduce the UHI effect" because the plan doesn't require a reduction in the UHI effect.
Eliminate.
(B) takes for granted that the UHI effect is the main environmental challenge faced by the city of Phoenix
The recommendation makes sense regardless of whether the UHI effect is the "main" environmental challenge.
As long as it is an enviromental challenge resulting in a need to conserver water, it could make sense to reduce lot sizes to conserve water.
Eliminate.
(C) fails to consider that there are ways of obtaining additional reductions in water consumption
The recommendation makes sense regardless of whether there are ways of obtaining additional reductions in water consumption. After all, even if there are additional ways of doing so, it makes sense to reduce water consumption in the way recommended.
So, the fact that the recommendation does not involve any consideration of additional ways to reduce water consumption is not a flaw.
Eliminate.
(D) fails to envisage the possibility that many Phoenix residents may be opposed to the plan
The possibility that many Phoenix residents may be opposed to the plan is not a flaw in the plan itself. In other words, the recommendation could make sense even of people are opposed to it. After all, the fact that people are opposed to something doesn't mean that it's not logical.
Eliminate.
(E) fails to consider the possible impact on water consumption if having a smaller proportion of grassy area were to increase the UHI effect
As we saw, the implied conclusion of the passage is the following:
At the same time the passage says the following:
We see that buildings absorbing heat contribute to the UHI, whuch in turn has "led to increased water use."
Simply put, more buildings in an area --> more water use.
So, what will happen if city planners follow the recommendation and "require that residential lot sizes in new construction be smaller"?
Well, requiring smaller lot sizes will likely cause more buildings to be built in a given area since, the smaller lots are, the more lots fit into the same area.
As we've seen, more buildings in an area leads to higher temperatures and thus to more water use. So the author has missed the fact that, by recommending that city planners "require that residential lot sizes in new construction be smaller," the author is recommending a course of action that could lead to higher temperatures and thus serve to increase water use, or at least may not result in a net decrease in water use.
So, we can see that, as this choice says, the recommendation is flawed because it "fails to consider the possible impact on water consumption if having a smaller proportion of grassy area were to increase the UHI effect."
Correct answer: E
Phoenix, in the southwestern United States, has grown from an agricultural community to a city of more than 1.5 million residents. One consequence is that the average temperatures in the area have risen significantly: buildings and city streets are absorbing greater amounts of the sun's radiant energy and retaining more heat. This phenomenon is known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These increased temperatures have led to increased water use for residential lawns and gardens. To conserve the city's limited water supplies by reducing the average area of garden and lawn around homes, city planners should require that residential lot sizes in new construction be smaller.
We see that this question is a Plan question that has an implied conclusion. The implied conclusion is the following:
- City planners can conserve the city's water supplies by reducing the average area of garden and lawn around homes by requiring that residential lot sizes in new construction be smaller.
The recommendation above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
The correct answer will present a flaw in the recommendation, which may involve something that the author has assumed but could involve something the author has missed.
(A) takes for granted that reducing the size of residential lots would reduce the UHI effect and thus reduce water consumption
The recommendation involves the idea that reducing the size of lots would serve to reduce water consumption through serving to reduce the average area of garden and lawn around homes.
So, water consumption would be reduced through a reduction in lawn and garden area, an outcome that doesn't require a reduction in the UHI effect.
Thus, the recommendation does not take for granted that "reducing the size of residential lots would reduce the UHI effect" because the plan doesn't require a reduction in the UHI effect.
Eliminate.
(B) takes for granted that the UHI effect is the main environmental challenge faced by the city of Phoenix
The recommendation makes sense regardless of whether the UHI effect is the "main" environmental challenge.
As long as it is an enviromental challenge resulting in a need to conserver water, it could make sense to reduce lot sizes to conserve water.
Eliminate.
(C) fails to consider that there are ways of obtaining additional reductions in water consumption
The recommendation makes sense regardless of whether there are ways of obtaining additional reductions in water consumption. After all, even if there are additional ways of doing so, it makes sense to reduce water consumption in the way recommended.
So, the fact that the recommendation does not involve any consideration of additional ways to reduce water consumption is not a flaw.
Eliminate.
(D) fails to envisage the possibility that many Phoenix residents may be opposed to the plan
The possibility that many Phoenix residents may be opposed to the plan is not a flaw in the plan itself. In other words, the recommendation could make sense even of people are opposed to it. After all, the fact that people are opposed to something doesn't mean that it's not logical.
Eliminate.
(E) fails to consider the possible impact on water consumption if having a smaller proportion of grassy area were to increase the UHI effect
As we saw, the implied conclusion of the passage is the following:
- City planners can conserve the city's water supplies by reducing the average area of garden and lawn around homes by requiring that residential lot sizes in new construction be smaller.
At the same time the passage says the following:
- the average temperatures in the area have risen significantly: buildings and city streets are absorbing greater amounts of the sun's radiant energy and retaining more heat. This phenomenon is known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These increased temperatures have led to increased water use for residential lawns and gardens.
We see that buildings absorbing heat contribute to the UHI, whuch in turn has "led to increased water use."
Simply put, more buildings in an area --> more water use.
So, what will happen if city planners follow the recommendation and "require that residential lot sizes in new construction be smaller"?
Well, requiring smaller lot sizes will likely cause more buildings to be built in a given area since, the smaller lots are, the more lots fit into the same area.
As we've seen, more buildings in an area leads to higher temperatures and thus to more water use. So the author has missed the fact that, by recommending that city planners "require that residential lot sizes in new construction be smaller," the author is recommending a course of action that could lead to higher temperatures and thus serve to increase water use, or at least may not result in a net decrease in water use.
So, we can see that, as this choice says, the recommendation is flawed because it "fails to consider the possible impact on water consumption if having a smaller proportion of grassy area were to increase the UHI effect."
Correct answer: E
General Discussion
16 Feb 2024, 16:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
Phoenix, in the southwestern United States, has grown from an agricultural community to a city of more than 1.5 million residents. One consequence is that the average temperatures in the area have risen significantly: buildings and city streets are absorbing greater amounts of the sun's radiant energy and retaining more heat. This phenomenon is known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These increased temperatures have led to increased water use for residential lawns and gardens. To conserve the city's limited water supplies by reducing the average area of garden and lawn around homes, city planners should require that residential lot sizes in new construction be smaller.
The recommendation above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) takes for granted that reducing the size of residential lots would reduce the UHI effect and thus reduce water consumption
(B) takes for granted that the UHI effect is the main environmental challenge faced by the city of Phoenix
(C) fails to consider that there are ways of obtaining additional reductions in water consumption
(D) fails to envisage the possibility that many Phoenix residents may be opposed to the plan
(E) fails to consider the possible impact on water consumption if having a smaller proportion of grassy area were to increase the UHI effect
Interesting passage. In a sense, it explains one of the consequences of an urban environment. The buildings, for example, trap heat in the area and thus more water gets used by people for their gardens. It's therefore said that new residential lots should be required to be smaller if the plan is to save water by reducing the size of gardens around homes.
We're asked to look for something that hurts this suggestion.
(E) is the answer. If ironically one of the effects of having smaller gardens (LESS GRASSY AREA) is that the temperature in the city increases EVEN MORE, you could end up using even more water. Basically, the proposed solution could cause MORE water to be used by residents. Imagine you move to a newly constructed house in the area and you end up watering your albeit smaller garden A LOT more because the temperature has gotten significantly higher. Even though the garden may be 50% smaller than your old one, you might be using 200% as much water for it! There are a number of ways water consumption could go up if it gets significantly hotter: residents may drink more water, take more showers, etc.
The recommendation above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) takes for granted that reducing the size of residential lots would reduce the UHI effect and thus reduce water consumption
(B) takes for granted that the UHI effect is the main environmental challenge faced by the city of Phoenix
(C) fails to consider that there are ways of obtaining additional reductions in water consumption
(D) fails to envisage the possibility that many Phoenix residents may be opposed to the plan
(E) fails to consider the possible impact on water consumption if having a smaller proportion of grassy area were to increase the UHI effect
Interesting passage. In a sense, it explains one of the consequences of an urban environment. The buildings, for example, trap heat in the area and thus more water gets used by people for their gardens. It's therefore said that new residential lots should be required to be smaller if the plan is to save water by reducing the size of gardens around homes.
We're asked to look for something that hurts this suggestion.
(E) is the answer. If ironically one of the effects of having smaller gardens (LESS GRASSY AREA) is that the temperature in the city increases EVEN MORE, you could end up using even more water. Basically, the proposed solution could cause MORE water to be used by residents. Imagine you move to a newly constructed house in the area and you end up watering your albeit smaller garden A LOT more because the temperature has gotten significantly higher. Even though the garden may be 50% smaller than your old one, you might be using 200% as much water for it! There are a number of ways water consumption could go up if it gets significantly hotter: residents may drink more water, take more showers, etc.
