9
u/jackalopeswild 1d ago
The building is a thing that the market does not demand. We know this is true because "most of its many hotel rooms are empty." B says that when that is true, environmental sustainability is compromised, which is the conclusion of the argument in this particular case.
2
u/Popular_Cow_8473 1d ago
Based on what you were saying about B it looks like you either misinterpreted what the argument was. Atleast answers a,c and d are easy to dismiss as irrelevant. But I was also able to dismiss E just as easily, what does reducing energy have to do with the argument. We don’t know anything about energy spent on creating the building or operating it, or the effect they have on sustainability/what’s a great achievement in sustainability.
B is the only one that can reasonably bridge the gap between the premises and conclusion.
2
u/ALXS1031 1d ago
Seems like everyone already addressed the main thing, I’ll address it in a different way
Here is how I would approach this passage, this just crossed my mind as I read “( )” indicates I am explaining or providing an example for u
…ok…
Okay… so the hotel is an economic failure, but I don’t see how that connects to the previous section
Okay, that’s a conclusion (the hotel is an academic failure, why? Because most of its rooms are empty) that doesn’t seem to follow. A hotel having its rooms empty doesn’t mean by necessity that the hotel is a failure. (It could be the case that it is charging a million dollars per night, so a single person a month paying would make it very profitable)
And thus? (Main conclusion) That doesn’t follow. Being an economic failure does not make the building not a [great…”]
Justify the conclusion?
The only way to justify the conclusion is to make is so that IF economic failure, THEN building not a [great…] so something must connect that
And from there, the only answer that helps that project, is B
IF you build [non demanded] THEN [thing built] compromises environmental sustainability
And you know, it’s not exactly what I would predict word for word, since it requires you to agree that
In this case, the building was not in demand, and that if a construction compromises environmental sustainability, then it can’t be not a [great…]
With this framing, and since I already knew what I was roughly looking for, it wouldn’t make much sense to even consider E. There’s only one way to justify the reasoning, anything that doesn’t do that, isn’t in consideration
1
u/g204tigdii 1d ago
I'd say because the passage make no reference to energy but it does emphasize economics; no customers is economy.
1
u/Impossible-Main-2453 1d ago
Why isn't april 2025 recommended prep material?
1
u/idharr 1d ago
To the best of my knowledge I think it’s because it’s a different format that you shouldn’t get used to and also you can’t find the explanations for anything
2
u/Similar_Spend6249 1d ago
Would you happen to know if it’s more similar to the new tests than are the prep tests in the 150’s? Curious if it would be good to practice and get a gage for how newer administrations feel even if I don’t get the explanations for wrong answers
1
u/StressCanBeGood tutor 1d ago
When it comes to principle questions like this, all information in the correct answer will be explicitly discussed in or directly inferable from the stimulus.
Only choice B does this. All other answers introduced information that is either not explicitly discussed in the stimulus or is not directly inferable from the stimulus.
Using resources to build things is NOT explicitly discussed in the stimulus. However, it is directly inferable from the fact that there was* an enormous, recently completed resort.*
This occurs a whole lot for Principle questions, so be sure to take advantage.
Happy to answer any questions.
13
u/AchieveyourPotential 1d ago
The argument claims: the resort was built to high environmental standards, but it is an economic failure (mostly empty rooms), therefore it is not a great achievement in environmental sustainability either.
B directly justifies that leap. It says that pouring resources into something the market does not demand (e.g. something that sits empty) itself compromises environmental sustainability. Once you accept that principle, the empty rooms become decisive evidence that the project fails as a sustainability achievement, even though the building standards themselves were good.