reg this CR

[RonPurewal]

"Security personnel" means "security personnel". If the word "security" is used, then, necessarily, we're talking about the part of their job description that involves security.
It's not impossible that security personnel also serve other functions, but that's not really an objection.

In other words, if you consider this an objection, then you're saying that the literal meaning of words is void. Needless to say, that would be problematic.

[RonPurewal]

Perhaps more importantly --

Regardless of whether they're security people, cops, janitors, or purple unicorns riding rainbows through the summer sky, choice C is still wrong, because it doesn't distinguish between the two towns.
Remember, we don't just need some random reason for the presence of the doors -- we need a reason for the presence of the doors in one town, but not the other one.

If a choice doesn't differentiate between the two towns, it's the wrong answer. Period.

[sunny.singh25]

Thank you. I must say that I did not question the validity of the literal meaning of the term 'security', though, queerly, the role of security men operating the entrance/exit door of a bank, flashed through my mind, as I have seen in bank branches in Indian towns, forlorn 'security men' opening/closing doors to customers. Therefore, i was tempted by option C to imagine the physical comfort of not having to manually operate the bank door. However, Ron I can follow your explanation.
Cheers..

[RonPurewal]

Thank you. I must say that I did not question the validity of the literal meaning of the term 'security', though, queerly, the role of security men operating the entrance/exit door of a bank, flashed through my mind, as I have seen in bank branches in Indian towns, forlorn 'security men' opening/closing doors to customers. Therefore, i was tempted by option C to imagine the physical comfort of not having to manually operate the bank door. However, Ron I can follow your explanation.
Cheers..

Cheers you too. But you still don't seem to be acknowledging the other aspect of the problem -- namely, that you must differentiate between Inverness and La Rinconada.
That aspect is just as important as the security thing, and it makes the elimination of choice C trivial. (Once you notice that choice C doesn't distinguish between the two towns, you don't even have to read the rest of the words.)

[sunny.singh25]

Thank you, Ron. I have indeed acknowledged your point on the issue of differentiation too. Without stretching this issue too much, I have one question though that I wished you could clarify. Kindly look at the statement written below- notwithstanding that it is self-confected and crude- and view it as an analogy of the present question.

John runs two miles daily; Peter runs four miles daily, therefore it means that Peter has more stamina than John.

If we were to weaken the above hypothesis/argument, which answer choice weakens it more?
a. John is healthy whereas Peter is obese and has been advised by his physician to run four miles daily to avoid future health complications.
or
b. It has been scientifically proven that running four miles daily has beneficial impact on physical health in the long term.

Now, my question is only as regards the FORM of the answer choices on the GMAT. The argument of the original statement is that Peter’s running four miles daily means nothing except that Peter is fitter than John and therefore, can run more. To weaken the above logic, we need an alternate explanation that Peter is not necessarily fitter than John and he runs more daily due to some other reason, which could be either that he has been advised by the doctor to do so (choice a) or that there is a scientific reason for his doing so (choice b). Here, do we necessarily need a comparison/differentiation between Peter’s running four miles and John’s not doing so, or is option b also valid, as it expresses an alternate explanation of the benefit of doing what Peter does, per se, thereby also extending a valid logic why anybody may be doing that i.e. running four miles daily ?
I hope my thoughts are not abstruse and vague.
Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

These examples are not good.

Neither choice relates directly to "stamina" in any meaningful way. I.e., even if someone has the goal of avoiding future health problems, that has no bearing on whether his endurance exceeds someone else's.
In your reasoning, you're also equating "more stamina" with "fitter"; that's also a questionable connection. ("Fitness" can be defined in a million zillion different ways, not all of which have to do with endurance.)

[RonPurewal]

More importantly, it seems that your whole point, in this post, is to try to spell out two unnecessarily indirect connections. Don't do that! The whole point of critical reasoning is that the correct answers will always be strongly and directly related to the matter at hand. That's the whole point "” it's a matter of focus.

Finally, I can't discern any connection between these examples and the problem in this thread, so this query doesn't belong in this folder anyway (it would be most appropriately placed in the general verbal folder).

[deepadkv]

Sorry for opening up this post after quite some time.
I understand that we are trying to find some alternate reason apart from security reasons for having 2 doors.
I also understand why the harsh winters provides that alternate reason.
I have a query regarding answer option E.
e) Inverness has almost twice as many police officers per capita as does La Rinconada.

Considering that we have to make some reasonable options regarding options in the strengthen/weaken questions, can't we assume that since the number of police officers is twice in Inverness there is a much less chance of robbery and therefore the double doors are not for security reasons.
It is true that this line of thought only tells that it is not security but some other reason and not actually what the other reason is.
Option E is probably not the statement that most weakens the argument, but can't it also be considered a weakener?

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

There's no necessary relationship between the number of cops and the incidence of crime.
It's possible that crime is low because there are many cops. It's just as possible that there are so many cops because crime is so high!

To use choice E, you'd have to hypothesize"”at random"”one or the other of these. Not workable.

[deepadkv]

Thanks for the clarification Ron!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[vidyasrinivasan1987]

Hi Ron,

I just attended your session on this question.I picked E thinking it provided a reason why double doors are not for security.
I thought more police personal means security for that city is being taken care of by police.
So double doors are not for security.Is this wrong way to think.

Regards,
Vidya

[vidyasrinivasan1987]

Apologies for posting that question.I just noticed that my query has been answered.
Kindly ignore it.

Regards,
Vidya

[tim]

No problem. Glad you found what you were looking for!