Whats the holdup on construction on the lot we purchased downtown? We

Question

E-mail from District Manager to Project Manager

What’s the holdup on construction on the lot we purchased downtown? We planned for that facility to be open next quarter, but the last report I got says we haven’t even broken ground yet. Is there a problem I’m not aware of? I don’t see the point in throwing money at a vacant lot. Unless there’s significant movement soon, we’re going to have to revise the projections, and we can’t even do that sensibly unless we know what the realities of the situation are. Can I have a clear picture of the present situation and the anticipated progress?E-mail from Project Manager to District Manager

The construction at the downtown site has been held up because of EPA concerns. The previous building on the site housed a dry cleaner, and we knew that, so we were prepared to have to do air, water, and soil tests for perchloroethylene. Unfortunately, there is now a claim that the site was a gas station, with in-ground tanks, prior to construction of the building that housed the cleaners. We dispute this contention but decided we should go forward with the tests the EPA requires, to avoid further delay. We can’t undertake construction until EPA signs off on the ground being clear of contaminants.E-mail from District Manager to Project Manager

I understand that we need to have assurances that there are no carcinogenic chemicals in the soil before we erect a building where we will be housing and caring for clients who may already be infirm, but the time frame is a concern. How is the determination about chemicals in the soil done? Are they taking one sample or samples from several locations on the site? If it’s one sample, what are acceptable levels, and do we have an appeal if the finding is unacceptable? If they’re taking multiple samples, must all samples meet the standard? Are the values averaged? What if only one is above the line?

Madhvendrasinh · Answer

This question is good but don't you find the word "Testing" used in statement 2 of question 1 a bit wrong? Because email#2 says that they decided they "should" do the testing, I imply that they haven't given the samples for testing yet, hence, the reason behind delay would not be "testing" but delay in providing samples or the dispute about in-groound gast tanks. Also the district manager has not stated in his email as "the given sample", the dm only asks about how the tests are done usually and what are th basic standards.

Bismuth83 · Answer

I agree with you on this. The tests haven't been done yet so they haven't caused delays yet in some sense. It should rather be worded as "Testing for chemicals in the soil   will cause   delays in the construction schedule".

Bismuth83 · Answer

Question 1.

1. We are asked to  check which statements can be supported by using information given .

2.  It is illegal to build on the site of a former gas station.  Email #2 discusses about the possibility that a gas station was once built there, however, there is no mention that it's illegal to build on the site.   So, this statement isn't supported by the text.

3.  Testing for chemicals in the soil has caused delays in the construction schedule.  Email #1 asks about the reason construction is delayed and Email #2 explains this by saying that testing for chemicals needs to be done.   So, this statement is supported by the text.

4.   Soil samples from the construction site showed significant levels of carcinogenic chemicals.    None of the emails give information about the results of testing.    So, this statement isn't supported by the text.

Question 2.

1. Here, it is also asked to  figure out which statement can be supported by using the information given .

2.    Construction cannot begin on the site because the company cannot prove that there was no gas station on that property.    Email #2 discusses that only soil tests are necessary, which means that even if the company can't prove that there was no gas station, a good soil test would still allow construction.    So, this statement isn't supported by the text.

3.    The majority of soil samples taken from the site are clean, but the EPA insists that all samples must be free of chemicals.    Once again, there is no information given about the results of the testing.    So, this statement isn't supported by the text.

dejavu3363 · Answer

in statement2 of q1, shouldn't it be "soil, water and air" for making it true? Alone soil tests wont help much in minimizing delays.. Thoughts?

samarpan.g28 · Answer

It is taken from Email #3 " How is the determination about chemicals in the soil done? Are they taking one sample or samples from several locations on the site? If it’s one sample, what are acceptable levels, and do we have an appeal if the finding is unacceptable? If they’re taking multiple samples, must all samples meet the standard? Are the values averaged? What if only one is above the line?"

As mentioned in the inference, only 'soil test' is fine. But the EPA has not given the sign-off yet, so this inference is incorrect, and hence the answer is No.

HarshG7 · Answer

for Question 2 Statement 1 "Construction cannot begin on the site because the company cannot prove that there was no gas station on that property" can we not make a direct inference about this being true as Email 2 i.e. E-mail from Project Manager to District Manager states the fact "Unfortunately, there is now a claim that the site was a gas station, with in-ground tanks, prior to construction of the building that housed the cleaners. We dispute this contention", stating that they dispute this contention, can it not mean that indirectly the said question statement stands true ?

SwethaReddyL · Answer

+1, could one of you please take this  Bunuel  /  bb  /  chetan2u

Thanks in advance,
Swetha

chetan2u · Answer

Hi
The email #2 states :-
1. Construction could not start earlier as tests for soil were pending given the land was used by cleaners.  (However, we can also say that these tests are still pending as per the mail)  
 2. Before the above tests could be done, another claim of the land being used as a gas station has cropped up. The company disputes that but is ready for additional tests. 
  3. The construction has not started because of   the pending tests. Even if they would have proved that there was no gas station, the pending tests mentioned at point 1 above would not allow immediate start.

Thus, the construction is not pending because the company could not prove ABC but because the tests are pending.

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   Sajjad1994

In q1, second statement, if we try to answer why there is a delay, then we can say testing is not conducted yet. But for 'What caused' delay, answer cannot be testing, but rather because of the another claim of gas station that delayed testing. In that sense we cannot infer second part. ( A will lead to B and B will then lead to C, but if A doesn't happen, we will say C didn't happen because A caused th delayed, B didn't have chance to do anything about it as for it to happen A was supposed to happen)

"Testing for chemicals in the soil  has caused  delays in the construction schedule."

Bunuel · Answer

The wording is not precise. Archiving the question.

Whats the holdup on construction on the lot we purchased downtown? We

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

Yes	No
		It is illegal to build on the site of a former gas station.
		Testing for chemicals in the soil has caused delays in the construction schedule.
		Soil samples from the construction site showed significant levels of carcinogenic chemicals.

Yes	No
		Construction cannot begin on the site because the company cannot prove that there was no gas station on that property.
		The majority of soil samples taken from the site are clean, but the EPA insists that all samples must be free of chemicals.