Citical Reasoning

[jp.jprasanna]

Hi gs,
Actually, if you look carefully at the question and the correct answer you’ll see that even if you interpret "housing blocks" as land the analysis holds and the correct answer still works. This is what happens more often than not - if the GMAT uses an ambiguous or technical term, you can define it in context and still be fine..

Hi - I eliminated C because of the word "Condo" as the premise and the conclusion talks about houses in general and something that's true with Condo cant affect the argument for instance there could have been 10 condos and 1000 Million houses in City X. - Is my reasoning correct?

Can someone please explain what's wrong with B!?

[tim]

your analysis of C sounds good. as for B, Stacey explained why it was wrong; was there something about her explanation you found unsatisfactory?

[JbhB682]

Hi Emily - I unfortunately chose B. Following was my reasoning

Well, if houses are getting larger and larger on average per B -- it's quite possible that new residents are renting 1 bedroom apartments or basements in these now larger house as opposed to new residents buying a brand new house

Isn't that a possibility with option B ?

[esledge]

Yes...but if you play the speculation game, you can spin all of the wrong answers so that they potentially weaken the conclusion.

[To be clear: the following approach is WRONG]
(B) as you say: Well, if houses are getting larger and larger on average per B -- it's quite possible that new residents are renting 1 bedroom apartments or basements in these now larger house as opposed to new residents buying a brand new house ... so there could be more new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

(C) If resales of condominiums are to new residents (and the people moving out go...somewhere?), then there could be more new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

(D) If the cost of materials has decreased, and we know contractors have been going without work so maybe they are willing to work more cheaply, so maybe home prices have declined, so maybe actually new residents are buying up existing homes and that's just not reflected in the data from the premises ... so there could be more new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

(E) If other big-ticket items are selling steadily, maybe people have plenty of cash. So fewer mortgages doesn't mean fewer home purchases, and there could be more new residents moving to City X than there were previously.
[End of WRONG approach]

All 5 answers can't be right, so this should reveal the flaw in this approach: If you assume a bunch of extra stuff, you can make any answer fit.

You must prevent yourself from doing this. I find it's helpful to ask myself "ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL, is this good for, bad for, or no effect on the conclusion?" If you find yourself saying "If X, then Y..." you are probably overthinking, and that choice is probably just "no effect."

All other things equal...
(A) a bunch of new homes up for sale is BAD for the argument that fewer new residents are moving in...the lack of other new home construction is not a good indicator of demographic trends if new residents have these potential housing blocks to move into.

(B) No effect on the conclusion without making assumptions: average home size =/= number of new residents in a known way.

(C) No effect on the conclusion without making assumptions: condo resales =/= number of new residents in a known way.

(D) No effect on the conclusion without making assumptions: material costs =/= number of new residents in a known way.

(E) No effect on the conclusion without making assumptions: sales of boats/autos =/= number of new residents in a known way.

[JbhB682]

Thank you Emily .. I have certainly made the mistake of making "Hopeful assumptions" in the past and I did it again ..

Thank you

Just one follow up

When you read the first sentence [developers have stopped buying land, contractors have found themselves going without work for longer periods, and banks have issued fewer mortgage]

Do you read this as a sequence of events, one leading to another (developers have stopped buying land THUS contractors have found themselves going without work for longer periods, and THUS banks have issued fewer mortgage)

OR

do you read this as three independent events ?

I was just curious ...

[esledge]

I read them as separate events, but I'm not sure there's a rule or a reason. The "and" allows either interpretation. I guess I'd need to know more about the specifics of real estate development to know for sure whether/how they are related, so in the absence of the word "thus," as you suggest, you can't assume.

In this one, it probably doesn't matter much: any of them (regardless of chronological order or causation) could be relevant.