During the recent spate of brushfires in the Southwest, homeowners who lived near affected areas wer...

题目信息

During the recent spate of brushfires in the Southwest, homeowners who lived near affected areas were advised to douse their roofs with water to prevent their houses from catching fire before evacuating the area. After the fires were brought under control and the homeowners were allowed to return to the area, many who doused their roofs discovered significant fire damage to their houses. Clearly, then, dousing their roofs was a wasted effort.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?

A:The houses of owners who did not douse the roofs with water suffered appreciably more fire damage than did those of owners who did douse the roofs with water.

B:Not all homeowners who doused their roofs did so to the same extent.

C:The fire insurance rates for those who doused their roofs did not increase after the fire.

D:The houses that suffered the least damage were those in which the owners remained and continuously doused the roofs.

E:Most of the homeowners who doused their roofs had been through a brushfire evacuation before.

参考答案及共享解析

共享解析来源为网络权威资源、GMAT高分考生等；如有疑问，欢迎在评论区提问与讨论

正确答案： A:The houses of owners who did not douse the roofs with water suffered appreciably more fire damage than did those of owners who did douse the roofs with water.

The argument is that "even though the houses were doused with water, the damage was extensive. Hence it was not useful to douse the house with water".

To weaken the argument, we have to find something that would suggest that dousing helped.

Answer choice A, says that "people who doused their house with water had significantly less damage than others who didn't"

So the answer choice is A

笔记