Question:

To protect beachfront buildings from ocean storms, ocean resorts have built massive seawalls between beaches and the buildings. Not only do the seawalls block off some buildings' ocean view, but the beaches themselves become ever narrower, because sand can no longer creep inland as storms erode it at the water's edge.
If the information is correct, which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported on the basis of it?

Show Hint

In "most strongly supported" questions, look for the conclusion that is a direct result of combining the premises. Avoid options that introduce new information, make value judgments, or go beyond the scope of the text. The best answer often points out an irony or paradox created by the facts presented.
Updated On: Oct 1, 2025
  • Since the ferocity of ocean storms is increasing, increasingly high seawalls must be built between beaches and beachfront property.
  • Even when beaches are heavily used by people, they are necessary to the survival of the many wild species that use them.
  • Seawalls constructed to protect beachfront buildings will not themselves eventually be damaged by storms and will not require, if they are to protect the buildings, expensive repair or replacement.
  • The conservation of beaches for future generations should be the overriding goal of shore management at ocean coasts.
  • Trying to protect beachfront buildings by constructing seawalls is counterproductive in the long run for an oceanfront community wishing to maintain itself as a beach resort.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is an inference question that asks for the conclusion most strongly supported by the provided text. We need to synthesize the given facts to see what logical conclusion they lead to.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's break down the premises given in the passage:
- Premise 1: Seawalls are built by ocean resorts to protect beachfront buildings.
- Premise 2: Seawalls have negative effects: they block views and, more critically, they cause the beaches to narrow and eventually disappear by preventing the natural inland movement of sand.
From these premises, we can infer a central conflict or paradox. The community is a "beach resort," which implies its economic well-being and identity depend on having a beach. However, the action taken to protect the buildings (building seawalls) ultimately destroys the primary asset (the beach). This makes the action self-defeating or counterproductive to the community's long-term goals.
Now let's evaluate the options:
- (A) The passage does not state that storms are increasing in ferocity. This conclusion is not supported.
- (B) The passage does not mention wild species. This is outside the scope of the information given.
- (C) The passage provides no information about the durability of seawalls or their maintenance costs. This conclusion is unsupported.
- (D) This is a value judgment about what the "overriding goal" should be. The passage describes consequences but does not make a recommendation or state a moral imperative.
- (E) This option perfectly captures the paradox. The action (building seawalls) is "counterproductive" for a "beach resort" because it destroys the very beach that makes the community a resort. This conclusion is a direct and strong logical consequence of the information provided.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The information strongly supports the conclusion that building seawalls is a counterproductive strategy for a community that wants to remain a beach resort.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Logical Reasoning

View More Questions

Questions Asked in GRE exam

View More Questions