IMAT 2013 Q3 [Conclusion | Historic Buildings]

Past Papers Solutions Archives
,
1

There is an increasing number of historical or significant buildings in the UK which are said to be ‘At Risk’. Without a change in the law most of these buildings are doomed to crumble into the ground. This is because these buildings are no longer structurally sound. The exisiting strict renovation laws mean that they are too expensive or impractical for private individuals or developers to renovate or repair. There are certainly people out there who would be willing to maintain these buildings if they could use more modern and less expensive techniques and materials. Surely it is better to sacrifice some of the original building’s character rather than lose the entire structure.

Which one of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the above argument?

A. There is nothing wrong with changing the character of historic buildings.

B. ‘At Risk’ buildings need to be renovated according to strict rules.

C. A change in the law is needed if we hope to preserve more ‘At Risk’ buildings.

D. Existing laws make ‘At Risk’ buildings too expensive for most developers.

E. Historians can learn more from buildings which have not been modernised by modern developers.

2

Key Steps

  1. Read the question (do this for every question!)
  2. Read the passage
  3. In your own words, make a conclusion for the passage. What is the author’s main idea?
  4. Find a sentence in the text that matches the conclusion you made, and underline it.
    Keep an eye out for giveaway words and phrases
  5. Find an answer that matches the underlined sentence.

The passage is talking about the need for restoration of the old and historical buildings in the UK but there are difficulties because there are many strict rules and regulations around this, making it very expensive. Due to the high costs and difficulties of these regulations, the author says that it is just too expensive or impractical to renovate or repair them. As a solution, the author proposes that it is better to sacrifice some of the building’s original character rather than lose its entire struggle. So our conclusion could be that we need to change the law in order to save these buildings, or else we risk losing them entirely.

A There is nothing wrong with changing the character of historic buildings.

This is not what the author is trying to say, he is trying to say that it is better to change some of the character rather than to lose the building. In a best-case scenario, you would preserve the character and renovate the building, but these strict laws make it impossible due to financial and practical reasons. Therefore A is incorrect.

B ‘At Risk’ buildings need to be renovated according to strict rules.

This is the opposite of what the author is saying. The author is saying that it is not possible to renovate these ‘At Risk’ buildings according to strict rules because of financial and practicality. Therefore B is incorrect.

C A change in the law is needed if we hope to preserve more ‘At Risk’ buildings.

This is what the author states in the last sentence of the passage. It is better to save the building and modify its character slightly than to lose the building entirely. The only way to do this would be to change the strict laws that are currently preventing this, therefore C is the correct answer.

D Existing laws make ‘At Risk’ buildings too expensive for most developers.

This is not a conclusion, it is supporting evidence used by the author used to explain why these strict renovation laws need to change. It helps prove the need for a solution rather than act as a conclusion on its own. Therefore D is incorrect.

E Historians can learn more from buildings which have not been modernised by modern developers.

This is not relevant. It is probably a true statement, but not said in the text and requires inferring. It does not relate to the argument that these laws need to be changed so we can actually restore these buildings instead of losing them. Therefore E is incorrect.