In the past decade, floods along certain coastal regions of the United States caused by severe storms resulted in extraordinary...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

EASY

...

Notes

Post a Query

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?

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

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

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

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

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

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
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.	What it says: Coastal storms in the last 10 years caused huge property damage and costs What it does: Sets up the baseline - shows us how bad things were in the recent past What it is: Author's factual claim about recent history Visualization: Past decade: Coastal storms → $50 million in property damage + insurance costs
Meteorologists predict that the number of such storms will increase significantly during the next decade.	What it says: Weather experts expect way more coastal storms in the next 10 years What it does: Adds new information that builds on the damage we just learned about What it is: Expert prediction/forecast Visualization: Next decade: Storm frequency increases 40-50% (from 10 storms to 15 storms per year)
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.	What it says: Storm damage costs will be much higher in the next 10 years compared to the last 10 years What it does: Combines the previous facts to reach a conclusion about future costs What it is: Author's main conclusion Visualization: Past decade: $50M in costs → Next decade: $75M+ in costs

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with evidence about past storm damage, adds a prediction about future storm frequency, then concludes that costs will increase based on these two pieces of information.

Main Conclusion:

Property damage from coastal storms will cost significantly more money in the next decade than it did in the past decade.

Logical Structure:

The argument links past damage evidence with future storm predictions to support the conclusion that costs will rise. It assumes that more storms will automatically lead to higher total costs.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that would make us more confident that coastal storm damage costs will be significantly higher in the next decade compared to the past decade

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific claims about quantity (number of storms increasing significantly), activity (coastal storms causing floods), and cost comparison (next decade vs past decade costs for property owners and insurance companies)

Strategy

Look for new information that supports the logical jump from 'more storms' to 'significantly more costs.' The argument assumes that more storms automatically means proportionally higher costs, but we need to strengthen this connection by addressing potential gaps in this reasoning

Answer Choices Explained

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

This tells us when severe coastal storms typically occur (springtime), but timing doesn't help us understand whether future costs will be higher than past costs. Whether storms happen in spring, summer, or fall doesn't change the relationship between storm frequency and total damage costs. This doesn't strengthen the argument.

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

This directly strengthens the argument by adding a crucial missing piece. If more people are moving into these coastal regions, that means more property and more people will be in harm's way when the predicted increase in storms occurs. More property at risk + more frequent storms creates a compelling case for significantly higher total costs. This choice bridges the gap between 'more storms' and 'much higher costs.'

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

This actually weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. If storms will be more frequent but not more severe, we might expect costs to increase proportionally with frequency, but not 'significantly' as the conclusion claims. Less severe storms would cause less damage per storm, potentially offsetting some of the cost increase from higher frequency.

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

This suggests that in the worst-hit areas, property owners moved away rather than rebuilding. This implies there might be less property at risk in the most vulnerable locations, which could actually reduce future damage costs rather than increase them. This doesn't strengthen the argument.

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

Building codes requiring greater distance from shorelines means new construction will be safer and less vulnerable to storm damage. This protective measure would likely reduce future damage costs per storm, which works against the argument's conclusion that costs will be significantly higher.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...