Loading...
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?
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
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.
Property damage from coastal storms will cost significantly more money in the next decade than it did in the past decade.
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.
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
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)
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
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.
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.'
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.
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 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.