Educators are pleased with the recent rise in median SAT scores, which occurred after a decade of decline. Unfortunately, this encouraging statistic actually reflects rather poorly on our educational system. The scores have gone up because fewer students take the tests. A lot of disadvantaged students have simply given up hope of going to college, so they don't bother to take the tests (which they would need to get accepted). In other words, students who have tended to get low scores in the past have dropped out of competition entirely. The higher median scores now are the result of having only privileged, college-bound students take the test.
The author argues primarily by
A. denying the accuracy of his opponents' figures
(A) is incorrect because the author does not dispute the fact that SAT scores have recently gone up. The dispute is over what these figures mean, not what they are.
B. finding an alternative explanation for his opponents' evidence
(B) is correct. The author attributes the rise in SAT scores to the fact that fewer students take it, the ones who have been inclined to do poorly are the ones who are no longer taking it at all, and the only ones taking it are the ones who are inclined to do well. His opponents, on the other hand, seem to think that the higher scores indicate that the schools and the students' education have improved. The author therefore draws a different conclusion from the same facts.
C. refining and clarifying an existing argument
(C) is incorrect, because there's no "existing argument" for the author to refine or clarify. The author is disputing his opponents' conclusion, not updating his own position.
D. defending an argument against criticism by his opponents
(D) is incorrect because there's no indication that the author has been criticized by his opponents. The author's argument is presented as a new idea, an alternative to the standard interpretation of the results, based on conditions his opponents may not have considered.
E. suggesting that his opponents may be unfairly biased
(E) is incorrect because there is nothing in the stimulus to suggest that the author thinks his opponents' conclusion is unreasonable. Although the author may imply that his opponents neglected to consider the additional facts he proposes, he does not imply that they have done so for selfish, dishonest or emotional reasons.
October 29, 2009
Homework #23
Children never develop strong self-esteem if they are guided by adults who criticize them. Therefore, if children are guided by adults who never criticize them, they will develop strong self-esteem.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar to the flawed pattern of reasoning used in the argument above?
A. Even though Hannah studies hard, she does not get good grades. Therefore, Hannah should not try to get good grades by studying hard.
B. Telephone salesmen who have bad phone manners do not sell any products. Therefore, telephone salesmen with low sales records must have bad phone manners.
C. Using the store's new knitting machine, the knitting store owner made twice as many sweaters yesterday as she did the day before. Therefore, if she uses the knitting machine again tomorrow, she will make twice as many sweaters as she did today.
D. Puppies who are not used to being with people do not interact comfortably with a large group of people. Therefore, the more a puppy is used to being with people, the more comfortable he will be with a large group of people.
E. People who take calcium supplements do not increase their risk of heart disease. Therefore, people who do not take calcium supplements will increase their risk of heart disease.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar to the flawed pattern of reasoning used in the argument above?
A. Even though Hannah studies hard, she does not get good grades. Therefore, Hannah should not try to get good grades by studying hard.
B. Telephone salesmen who have bad phone manners do not sell any products. Therefore, telephone salesmen with low sales records must have bad phone manners.
C. Using the store's new knitting machine, the knitting store owner made twice as many sweaters yesterday as she did the day before. Therefore, if she uses the knitting machine again tomorrow, she will make twice as many sweaters as she did today.
D. Puppies who are not used to being with people do not interact comfortably with a large group of people. Therefore, the more a puppy is used to being with people, the more comfortable he will be with a large group of people.
E. People who take calcium supplements do not increase their risk of heart disease. Therefore, people who do not take calcium supplements will increase their risk of heart disease.
October 27, 2009
Homework #21 Answer
The state legislature is considering a bill that would outlaw capital punishment. However, certain lawmakers are doing everything they can to make sure we keep using the death penalty. To those people I say, go to death row and visit the prisoners there. You'll see that even convicted killers are human beings worthy of our mercy.
Which one of the following best describes the author's method of argument?
A. She makes an appeal to her opponents' emotions.
(A) is correct. The argument is clearly an appeal to the reader's sympathy. It promotes the idea that if the reader, one of the lawmakers who favors the death penalty, actually meets a death-row prisoner, he will have sympathy for the prisoner and reflexively oppose executing him, based only on that emotion. The author does not attempt to make any logical arguments against the death penalty.
B. She argues from a general principle to a specific conclusion.
(B) is incorrect because, if anything, she does the opposite. "The state legislature is considering a bill that would outlaw capital punishment" is a statement of a specific fact, not a general principle. The second sentence is also a statement of a specific fact. The author's final statement, "even convicted killers are human beings worthy of our mercy," is a general principle. She arrives at this principle by starting with specific facts, which lead to a suggestion, which she believes would lead her opponents to agree with this principle. She does not start with a general principle, and her "conclusion," such as it is, is not specific.
C. She uses sarcasm to mock her opponents' position.
(C) is incorrect because nothing in the language of the argument suggests a sarcastic tone. There is no irony in the author's words, nor is she making fun of her opponents. She is merely suggesting they do something that might change their minds before they make a decision.
D. She attacks the way in which her opponents have presented their view.
(D) is incorrect because the stimulus does not indicate one way or another how the opponents have presented their view. Note that there is a difference between her opponents' view and how her opponents have presented their view. She may be attacking their view, but she is not attacking the way in which they have presented it.
E. She overlooks a distinction that is essential to her opponents' argument.
(E) is incorrect because neither her argument nor her opponents' appears to hinge on any "distinction."
Which one of the following best describes the author's method of argument?
A. She makes an appeal to her opponents' emotions.
(A) is correct. The argument is clearly an appeal to the reader's sympathy. It promotes the idea that if the reader, one of the lawmakers who favors the death penalty, actually meets a death-row prisoner, he will have sympathy for the prisoner and reflexively oppose executing him, based only on that emotion. The author does not attempt to make any logical arguments against the death penalty.
B. She argues from a general principle to a specific conclusion.
(B) is incorrect because, if anything, she does the opposite. "The state legislature is considering a bill that would outlaw capital punishment" is a statement of a specific fact, not a general principle. The second sentence is also a statement of a specific fact. The author's final statement, "even convicted killers are human beings worthy of our mercy," is a general principle. She arrives at this principle by starting with specific facts, which lead to a suggestion, which she believes would lead her opponents to agree with this principle. She does not start with a general principle, and her "conclusion," such as it is, is not specific.
C. She uses sarcasm to mock her opponents' position.
(C) is incorrect because nothing in the language of the argument suggests a sarcastic tone. There is no irony in the author's words, nor is she making fun of her opponents. She is merely suggesting they do something that might change their minds before they make a decision.
D. She attacks the way in which her opponents have presented their view.
(D) is incorrect because the stimulus does not indicate one way or another how the opponents have presented their view. Note that there is a difference between her opponents' view and how her opponents have presented their view. She may be attacking their view, but she is not attacking the way in which they have presented it.
E. She overlooks a distinction that is essential to her opponents' argument.
(E) is incorrect because neither her argument nor her opponents' appears to hinge on any "distinction."
Homework #22
Educators are pleased with the recent rise in median SAT scores, which occurred after a decade of decline. Unfortunately, this encouraging statistic actually reflects rather poorly on our educational system. The scores have gone up because fewer students take the tests. A lot of disadvantaged students have simply given up hope of going to college, so they don't bother to take the tests (which they would need to get accepted). In other words, students who have tended to get low scores in the past have dropped out of competition entirely. The higher median scores now are the result of having only privileged, college-bound students take the test.
The author argues primarily by
A. denying the accuracy of his opponents' figures
B. finding an alternative explanation for his opponents' evidence
C. refining and clarifying an existing argument
D. defending an argument against criticism by his opponents
E. suggesting that his opponents may be unfairly biased
The author argues primarily by
A. denying the accuracy of his opponents' figures
B. finding an alternative explanation for his opponents' evidence
C. refining and clarifying an existing argument
D. defending an argument against criticism by his opponents
E. suggesting that his opponents may be unfairly biased
Homework #20 Answer
Many older men and women are still victims of age stereotypes. They are denied career advancement because they are simply considered "too old" to do the job, whether that's actually true or not. This is a terrible waste of human potential. To help fix this problem, older people applying for jobs should do everything they can to seem young, competent and energetic. Once they are hired, they should not tell anyone their true age, so they can avoid being treated unfairly by co-workers.
Which one of the following, if true, is most damaging to the argument above?
A. Harmful age stereotypes can only be destroyed if capable older people reveal their true age.
(A) is correct. The argument is that older workers should combat age stereotypes and avoid discrimination by hiding their age. This statement makes the precise opposite suggestion. If it is true that harmful age stereotypes can only be destroyed if older people reveal their age, then the problem can't be solved if they hide their age.
B. Scientific studies have found certain changes in brain function to be common in people older than 65.
(B) is incorrect because it provides an excuse for age discrimination, where the argument is suggesting a way to undermine and potentially end it. Further, the argument suggests that people should hide their age by "acting young" and either lying or avoiding the question, so if it's true that older people experience changes in brain function, that's even more reason to hide their age.
C. More and more older people are already finding employment in clerical and food-service jobs.
(C) is incorrect because whether or not older people have jobs is not the issue, nor is it the issue what kinds of jobs they have. The issue is how to go about getting a job, and how to avoid age discrimination once hired. Even if this statement is true, it does not undermine the author's suggestion that older people should act young and conceal their true age.
D. There is wide popular support of laws forbidding age-based discrimination for workers between 40 and 70 years old.
(D) is incorrect because "wide popular support" of anti-discrimination laws doesn't mean much. Even if there are such laws (and there are), everyone knows that having a law against something and actually preventing it from happening are two different things. This statement, that there is "wide popular support" for such laws, is even weaker. It does not undermine the author's suggestion that older people should act young and conceal their age in order to obtain and maintain employment. Even under such laws, this is still a valid suggestion.
E. Improved nutrition prevent, or maybe even reverse, many of the physical changes that occur as people get older.
(E) is incorrect because the author is not suggesting ways for older workers to maintain their health and stave off the inevitable deterioration that comes with aging. The whole point of age discrimination is that people make assumptions about a person's ability based solely on his age, not on his actual physical or mental capacity which varies from one individual to the next. What that means is that it would not matter whether or not an older person stays physically fit, let alone how he goes about doing it.
Which one of the following, if true, is most damaging to the argument above?
A. Harmful age stereotypes can only be destroyed if capable older people reveal their true age.
(A) is correct. The argument is that older workers should combat age stereotypes and avoid discrimination by hiding their age. This statement makes the precise opposite suggestion. If it is true that harmful age stereotypes can only be destroyed if older people reveal their age, then the problem can't be solved if they hide their age.
B. Scientific studies have found certain changes in brain function to be common in people older than 65.
(B) is incorrect because it provides an excuse for age discrimination, where the argument is suggesting a way to undermine and potentially end it. Further, the argument suggests that people should hide their age by "acting young" and either lying or avoiding the question, so if it's true that older people experience changes in brain function, that's even more reason to hide their age.
C. More and more older people are already finding employment in clerical and food-service jobs.
(C) is incorrect because whether or not older people have jobs is not the issue, nor is it the issue what kinds of jobs they have. The issue is how to go about getting a job, and how to avoid age discrimination once hired. Even if this statement is true, it does not undermine the author's suggestion that older people should act young and conceal their true age.
D. There is wide popular support of laws forbidding age-based discrimination for workers between 40 and 70 years old.
(D) is incorrect because "wide popular support" of anti-discrimination laws doesn't mean much. Even if there are such laws (and there are), everyone knows that having a law against something and actually preventing it from happening are two different things. This statement, that there is "wide popular support" for such laws, is even weaker. It does not undermine the author's suggestion that older people should act young and conceal their age in order to obtain and maintain employment. Even under such laws, this is still a valid suggestion.
E. Improved nutrition prevent, or maybe even reverse, many of the physical changes that occur as people get older.
(E) is incorrect because the author is not suggesting ways for older workers to maintain their health and stave off the inevitable deterioration that comes with aging. The whole point of age discrimination is that people make assumptions about a person's ability based solely on his age, not on his actual physical or mental capacity which varies from one individual to the next. What that means is that it would not matter whether or not an older person stays physically fit, let alone how he goes about doing it.
October 26, 2009
Homework #21
The state legislature is considering a bill that would outlaw capital punishment. However, certain lawmakers are doing everything they can to make sure we keep using the death penalty. To those people I say, go to death row and visit the prisoners there. You'll see that even convicted killers are human beings worthy of our mercy.
Which one of the following best describes the author's method of argument?
A. She makes an appeal to her opponents' emotions.
B. She argues from a general principle to a specific conclusion.
C. She uses sarcasm to mock her opponents' position.
D. She attacks the way in which her opponents have presented their view.
E. She overlooks a distinction that is essential to her opponents' argument.
Which one of the following best describes the author's method of argument?
A. She makes an appeal to her opponents' emotions.
B. She argues from a general principle to a specific conclusion.
C. She uses sarcasm to mock her opponents' position.
D. She attacks the way in which her opponents have presented their view.
E. She overlooks a distinction that is essential to her opponents' argument.
October 22, 2009
New Question Types for Marking Period 2
In addition to the four question types we learned in the first marking period (assumption, strengthen, weaken, inference), we'll be adding two more question types for the second marking period. These types of questions are unusual, but they will appear from time to time. With examples, they are:
Parallel Reasoning - The question will ask which one of the five answer choices is most similar to the argument being made in the stimulus. In other words, the stimulus will present an argument about a particular subject matter. The answer choices will attempt to make the same type of argument, but with different subject matter. The correct choice is the one whose reasoning most closely resembles that of the stimulus.
EXAMPLE:
If the government lowers income taxes, people will spend more of their money to buy consumer goods. This will stimulate the economy and result in higher salaries, which means the government will take in more revenue even though tax rates are lower.
Which one of the following arguments most closely resembles the reasoning in the statements above?
A. If we decrease the amount of overtime our employees work, our production costs will go down and we will make more money.
B. If we make it harder to participate in the school lunch program, people will have to spend more money on food and the farms will make more money.
C. If a movie is labeled "obscene" or "dirty," more people will want to see it and the morals of the community will be corrupted more than they would be otherwise.
D. If we give employees more paid holidays, they will become more efficient on the job and our productivity will actually increase.
E. If we give our children more spending money, they will learn to manage their money better and will realize how important it is to be careful with money.
(D) is the correct answer because its reasoning most closely resembles that of the stimulus, even though it's about a completely different subject. The argument is that a proposed course of action (lowering taxes/more paid holidays for employees) will actually have the opposite result (higher government revenue/greater productivity) than one would initially expect, and would benefit the actor. To answer a question like this, you need to put the argument in the abstract and not think about the subject matter. The key is how the author makes his argument, not what he is arguing.
(A) is incorrect because it describes an expected, predictable result, not a surprising result, of the proposed action.
(B) is incorrect because it also describes a predictable result, and describes a benefit to a third party who is not involved in the original action. In both the stimulus and choice (D), the original actor is the one who benefits from the action. Don't be fooled into looking for similar subject matter (making more money), or at only one part of the argument (in this case, the result).
(C) is incorrect because the result is a detriment, not a benefit; it is also predictable and does not directly affect the original actor.
(E) is incorrect because, like (A), it describes an expected, predictable result.
-------------------
Method of Argument - These questions will directly ask how the author is making his argument, or what kind of argument he is making. In other words, you're looking for what the author is doing, not what he's saying.
EXAMPLE:
Many people have cynically suggested that a child’s intellectual ability is determined by the socioeconomic status of his family. To test this belief, infants from poor families were removed from their homes and placed in special schools, where they were taught relatively advanced subjects from the time they were only three months old. These children had an average IQ of 110 by the time they reached school age. It would seem, therefore, that it is the degree of pre-kindergarten education the child has received, not his parents’ socioeconomic level, that determines his future intelligence.
The author's method of argument is to
A. present an alternative conclusion that explains the same evidence.
B. argue that poorer children are actually smarter than privileged ones.
C. cite specific evidence that supports his own conclusion.
D. disprove statistics presented by opponents.
E. suggest that the cause-and-effect relationship is actually the opposite of what his opponents say.
(C) is the correct answer because the author starts with something "many people" "cynically" say, then presents the results of a study in order to show that those "many people" are wrong. The author's conclusion is that education, not economics, determines a child's intelligence, and the results of the study support this conclusion.
(A) is incorrect because the evidence presented by the author is not the same evidence on which the initial belief is based. It is new evidence which the author discovered himself.
(B) is incorrect because the author is not trying to distinguish poor and privileged children, nor show that one or the other is inherently "smarter." In fact, the author is doing just the opposite. More importantly, though, this would be an example of a conclusion, not a method; i.e., something the author would be saying, not doing. (Of course, it's not what the author is saying, so it's wrong on both counts.)
(D) is incorrect because as far as we know, the author's opponents have not presented any statistics at all. The fact that their belief is called "cynical" suggests that they have no facts to back it up.
(E) is incorrect because it's simply wrong. The author's opponents say that low economic status causes low intelligence; the author is not arguing that low intelligence causes low economic status. (The same applies if you substitute "high" for "low".) The author's argument is that economic status and intelligence do not correlate.
--------
The first 20 homeworks have been added together as one grade for marking period 1. Marking period 2, and the second set of homeworks, will begin with Homework #21.
Parallel Reasoning - The question will ask which one of the five answer choices is most similar to the argument being made in the stimulus. In other words, the stimulus will present an argument about a particular subject matter. The answer choices will attempt to make the same type of argument, but with different subject matter. The correct choice is the one whose reasoning most closely resembles that of the stimulus.
EXAMPLE:
If the government lowers income taxes, people will spend more of their money to buy consumer goods. This will stimulate the economy and result in higher salaries, which means the government will take in more revenue even though tax rates are lower.
Which one of the following arguments most closely resembles the reasoning in the statements above?
A. If we decrease the amount of overtime our employees work, our production costs will go down and we will make more money.
B. If we make it harder to participate in the school lunch program, people will have to spend more money on food and the farms will make more money.
C. If a movie is labeled "obscene" or "dirty," more people will want to see it and the morals of the community will be corrupted more than they would be otherwise.
D. If we give employees more paid holidays, they will become more efficient on the job and our productivity will actually increase.
E. If we give our children more spending money, they will learn to manage their money better and will realize how important it is to be careful with money.
(D) is the correct answer because its reasoning most closely resembles that of the stimulus, even though it's about a completely different subject. The argument is that a proposed course of action (lowering taxes/more paid holidays for employees) will actually have the opposite result (higher government revenue/greater productivity) than one would initially expect, and would benefit the actor. To answer a question like this, you need to put the argument in the abstract and not think about the subject matter. The key is how the author makes his argument, not what he is arguing.
(A) is incorrect because it describes an expected, predictable result, not a surprising result, of the proposed action.
(B) is incorrect because it also describes a predictable result, and describes a benefit to a third party who is not involved in the original action. In both the stimulus and choice (D), the original actor is the one who benefits from the action. Don't be fooled into looking for similar subject matter (making more money), or at only one part of the argument (in this case, the result).
(C) is incorrect because the result is a detriment, not a benefit; it is also predictable and does not directly affect the original actor.
(E) is incorrect because, like (A), it describes an expected, predictable result.
-------------------
Method of Argument - These questions will directly ask how the author is making his argument, or what kind of argument he is making. In other words, you're looking for what the author is doing, not what he's saying.
EXAMPLE:
Many people have cynically suggested that a child’s intellectual ability is determined by the socioeconomic status of his family. To test this belief, infants from poor families were removed from their homes and placed in special schools, where they were taught relatively advanced subjects from the time they were only three months old. These children had an average IQ of 110 by the time they reached school age. It would seem, therefore, that it is the degree of pre-kindergarten education the child has received, not his parents’ socioeconomic level, that determines his future intelligence.
The author's method of argument is to
A. present an alternative conclusion that explains the same evidence.
B. argue that poorer children are actually smarter than privileged ones.
C. cite specific evidence that supports his own conclusion.
D. disprove statistics presented by opponents.
E. suggest that the cause-and-effect relationship is actually the opposite of what his opponents say.
(C) is the correct answer because the author starts with something "many people" "cynically" say, then presents the results of a study in order to show that those "many people" are wrong. The author's conclusion is that education, not economics, determines a child's intelligence, and the results of the study support this conclusion.
(A) is incorrect because the evidence presented by the author is not the same evidence on which the initial belief is based. It is new evidence which the author discovered himself.
(B) is incorrect because the author is not trying to distinguish poor and privileged children, nor show that one or the other is inherently "smarter." In fact, the author is doing just the opposite. More importantly, though, this would be an example of a conclusion, not a method; i.e., something the author would be saying, not doing. (Of course, it's not what the author is saying, so it's wrong on both counts.)
(D) is incorrect because as far as we know, the author's opponents have not presented any statistics at all. The fact that their belief is called "cynical" suggests that they have no facts to back it up.
(E) is incorrect because it's simply wrong. The author's opponents say that low economic status causes low intelligence; the author is not arguing that low intelligence causes low economic status. (The same applies if you substitute "high" for "low".) The author's argument is that economic status and intelligence do not correlate.
--------
The first 20 homeworks have been added together as one grade for marking period 1. Marking period 2, and the second set of homeworks, will begin with Homework #21.
October 21, 2009
Homework #19 Answer
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument in Homework #18?
A. Overripe vegetables are more nutritious than underripe ones.
(A) is incorrect. Recall that the argument in Homework #18 is that frozen vegetables are more nutritious than fresh ones, because they lose less of their nutritional value between the time they are picked and the time they are eaten. The stimulus there did express some concern that fresh vegetables picked ripe would be overripe by the time they reached the consumer, but the difference between overripe and underripe vegetables is not relevant to the argument. Even if this is true, it does not undermine the author's claim.
B. Vegetables destined for freezing and those destined for the grocery store are picked at the same time.
(B) is correct. The argument hinges on a distinction between what happens to vegetables between the time they are picked and the time they are eaten. Frozen vegetables, picked ripe, lose some nutrients in the freezing process, whereas fresh vegetables, picked early, lose even more by ripening off the vine. Therefore the point at which the vegetables are picked is important; how much nutritional value they lose depends in part on when they are picked. If both categories of vegetables are picked at the same time, then it is harder to argue that frozen vegetables are "better" than fresh ones.
C. Fresh vegetables are refrigerated during transport to prevent them from spoiling.
(C) is incorrect because it does not weaken the argument. The argument is not concerned with spoilage, but with loss of nutritional value caused by either freezing or ripening off the vine. This statement does not undermine the claim that ripe vegetables lose less nutrition when frozen than unripe ones do in transit from farm to store.
D. Many people who live near farms can purchase vegetables directly from the farmers.
(D) is incorrect because where people buy vegetables is irrelevant to the author's claims about the loss of nutritional value caused by freezing versus off-the-vine ripening. This statement does not make the author's conclusion, that one method causes less nutritional loss than the other, any less likely to be correct.
E. Tests have shown that fresh vegetables taste a lot better than frozen vegetables.
(E) is incorrect because it is also irrelevant. How the vegetables taste is not the issue; the issue is how nutritious they are when they are purchased and eaten.
A. Overripe vegetables are more nutritious than underripe ones.
(A) is incorrect. Recall that the argument in Homework #18 is that frozen vegetables are more nutritious than fresh ones, because they lose less of their nutritional value between the time they are picked and the time they are eaten. The stimulus there did express some concern that fresh vegetables picked ripe would be overripe by the time they reached the consumer, but the difference between overripe and underripe vegetables is not relevant to the argument. Even if this is true, it does not undermine the author's claim.
B. Vegetables destined for freezing and those destined for the grocery store are picked at the same time.
(B) is correct. The argument hinges on a distinction between what happens to vegetables between the time they are picked and the time they are eaten. Frozen vegetables, picked ripe, lose some nutrients in the freezing process, whereas fresh vegetables, picked early, lose even more by ripening off the vine. Therefore the point at which the vegetables are picked is important; how much nutritional value they lose depends in part on when they are picked. If both categories of vegetables are picked at the same time, then it is harder to argue that frozen vegetables are "better" than fresh ones.
C. Fresh vegetables are refrigerated during transport to prevent them from spoiling.
(C) is incorrect because it does not weaken the argument. The argument is not concerned with spoilage, but with loss of nutritional value caused by either freezing or ripening off the vine. This statement does not undermine the claim that ripe vegetables lose less nutrition when frozen than unripe ones do in transit from farm to store.
D. Many people who live near farms can purchase vegetables directly from the farmers.
(D) is incorrect because where people buy vegetables is irrelevant to the author's claims about the loss of nutritional value caused by freezing versus off-the-vine ripening. This statement does not make the author's conclusion, that one method causes less nutritional loss than the other, any less likely to be correct.
E. Tests have shown that fresh vegetables taste a lot better than frozen vegetables.
(E) is incorrect because it is also irrelevant. How the vegetables taste is not the issue; the issue is how nutritious they are when they are purchased and eaten.
Homework #20
Many older men and women are still victims of age stereotypes. They are denied career advancement because they are simply considered "too old" to do the job, whether that's actually true or not. This is a terrible waste of human potential. To help fix this problem, older people applying for jobs should do everything they can to seem young, competent and energetic. Once they are hired, they should not tell anyone their true age, so they can avoid being treated unfairly by co-workers.
Which one of the following, if true, is most damaging to the argument above?
A. Harmful age stereotypes can only be destroyed if capable older people reveal their true age.
B. Scientific studies have found certain changes in brain function to be common in people older than 65.
C. More and more older people are already finding employment in clerical and food-service jobs.
D. There is wide popular support of laws forbidding age-based discrimination for workers between 40 and 70 years old.
E. Improved nutrition prevent, or maybe even reverse, many of the physical changes that occur as people get older.
Which one of the following, if true, is most damaging to the argument above?
A. Harmful age stereotypes can only be destroyed if capable older people reveal their true age.
B. Scientific studies have found certain changes in brain function to be common in people older than 65.
C. More and more older people are already finding employment in clerical and food-service jobs.
D. There is wide popular support of laws forbidding age-based discrimination for workers between 40 and 70 years old.
E. Improved nutrition prevent, or maybe even reverse, many of the physical changes that occur as people get older.
October 20, 2009
Note on Assumption Questions
I am seeing too many responses to assumption questions that indicate an answer choice is wrong because it is "not mentioned in the stimulus," or words to that effect, or because it "cannot be proven by the stimulus," or words to that effect. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF AN ASSUMPTION QUESTION. As we discussed at the beginning of the term, an assumption is something the author has taken for granted and therefore left out, but that is so important to the argument's reasoning and validity that the whole thing falls apart if it is not true. Wrong choices in assumption questions are wrong not because they are "not mentioned in the stimulus," or because they "can't be proven," but because the argument does not depend on them being true; i.e., the argument remains valid even if they are false.
If you want to receive full credit for an explanation, you need to pay attention to the question and explain precisely WHY each answer choice is right or wrong. If your explanation indicates that you do not understand the question, or are answering the wrong question, you will not receive the full two (2) points for the explanation.
To review:
In an assumption question, the correct choice is the one on which the argument depends; the one which, if it were not true, would cause the argument to fail.
In a strengthen or support question, the correct choice is the one which makes the author's conclusion more likely to be correct.
In a weaken, dispute, undermine or rebuttal question, the correct choice is the one which makes the author's conclusion less likely to be correct.
In an inference or conclusion question, the correct choice is the one which can be most reasonably, logically and/or reliably drawn from the statements in the stimulus.
New question types will be introduced next marking period, so be on your toes.
If you want to receive full credit for an explanation, you need to pay attention to the question and explain precisely WHY each answer choice is right or wrong. If your explanation indicates that you do not understand the question, or are answering the wrong question, you will not receive the full two (2) points for the explanation.
To review:
In an assumption question, the correct choice is the one on which the argument depends; the one which, if it were not true, would cause the argument to fail.
In a strengthen or support question, the correct choice is the one which makes the author's conclusion more likely to be correct.
In a weaken, dispute, undermine or rebuttal question, the correct choice is the one which makes the author's conclusion less likely to be correct.
In an inference or conclusion question, the correct choice is the one which can be most reasonably, logically and/or reliably drawn from the statements in the stimulus.
New question types will be introduced next marking period, so be on your toes.
Homework #18 Answer
It is healthier to eat frozen vegetables than fresh ones. This is not because freezing makes them more nutritious. In fact, freezing actually causes food to lose some nutrients. Still, frozen vegetables are better for you because crops are usually harvested before they are ripe. Vegetables are at their most nutritious when they are allowed to ripen in the field. However, if they are picked when they are ripe, they would go bad by the time they reached the consumer. That's why they have to be picked early, and allowed to ripen in transit. These fresh vegetables never reach their full nutritional value. On the other hand, vegetables can be picked when they are ripe and then immediately frozen. As a result, frozen vegetables are generally more nutritious than the fresh vegetables we buy at the grocery store.
The above argument is based on which one of the following assumptions?
A. Frozen food companies freeze only the most nutritious kinds of vegetables.
(A) is incorrect because the argument stands even if this is not true. The argument is that frozen vegetables are ultimately better for you than fresh ones because the frozen ones are picked ripe and retain more nutrients than the fresh ones, which are picked early and have to ripen on the truck or in the store instead of on the vine. This distinction would remain regardless of which kinds of vegetables are being frozen.
B. Vegetables lose less nutrition from freezing than they do from being picked early.
(B) is correct. The stimulus acknowledges that both freezing vegetables and picking them early cause them to lose nutrients by the time they are sold, prepared and eaten. Yet the stimulus unequivocally states that frozen vegetables are "healthier," "better for you" and "more nutritious" than fresh ones. If they both lose nutrients along the way, then the only way one can be "better" than the other is if it loses less than the other. Therefore, the assumption must be that freezing vegetables is less harmful to their nutritional value than picking them early. If the opposite is true, or if they're the same, the argument falls apart.
C. Fresh vegetables are never sold immediately, but rather sit on shelves for a long time.
(C) is incorrect because whether this is true or not does not affect the author's claim. The argument is that fresh vegetables lose nutrients because they are picked early and have to ripen on the truck or in the store instead of on the vine. This is still a valid argument whether they are "sold immediately" or not.
D. People never freeze the fresh vegetables they buy at the grocery store.
(D) is incorrect because what people do with the vegetables after they are purchased is not part of the argument. The author is concerned with what happens to the nutritional value of vegetables between the time they are picked and the time they reach the consumer. His argument in favor of frozen vegetables over fresh ones remains valid regardless of what happens outside of this time frame.
E. All kinds of vegetables ripen at about the same rate in the same amount of time.
(E) is incorrect because the author does not attempt to distinguish the ripening characteristics of different vegetable varieties. Even if different kinds ripen faster or slower than others, the argument remains valid that more nutrition can be preserved by freezing ripe vegetables than by picking them early and letting them ripen on the way to the store.
The above argument is based on which one of the following assumptions?
A. Frozen food companies freeze only the most nutritious kinds of vegetables.
(A) is incorrect because the argument stands even if this is not true. The argument is that frozen vegetables are ultimately better for you than fresh ones because the frozen ones are picked ripe and retain more nutrients than the fresh ones, which are picked early and have to ripen on the truck or in the store instead of on the vine. This distinction would remain regardless of which kinds of vegetables are being frozen.
B. Vegetables lose less nutrition from freezing than they do from being picked early.
(B) is correct. The stimulus acknowledges that both freezing vegetables and picking them early cause them to lose nutrients by the time they are sold, prepared and eaten. Yet the stimulus unequivocally states that frozen vegetables are "healthier," "better for you" and "more nutritious" than fresh ones. If they both lose nutrients along the way, then the only way one can be "better" than the other is if it loses less than the other. Therefore, the assumption must be that freezing vegetables is less harmful to their nutritional value than picking them early. If the opposite is true, or if they're the same, the argument falls apart.
C. Fresh vegetables are never sold immediately, but rather sit on shelves for a long time.
(C) is incorrect because whether this is true or not does not affect the author's claim. The argument is that fresh vegetables lose nutrients because they are picked early and have to ripen on the truck or in the store instead of on the vine. This is still a valid argument whether they are "sold immediately" or not.
D. People never freeze the fresh vegetables they buy at the grocery store.
(D) is incorrect because what people do with the vegetables after they are purchased is not part of the argument. The author is concerned with what happens to the nutritional value of vegetables between the time they are picked and the time they reach the consumer. His argument in favor of frozen vegetables over fresh ones remains valid regardless of what happens outside of this time frame.
E. All kinds of vegetables ripen at about the same rate in the same amount of time.
(E) is incorrect because the author does not attempt to distinguish the ripening characteristics of different vegetable varieties. Even if different kinds ripen faster or slower than others, the argument remains valid that more nutrition can be preserved by freezing ripe vegetables than by picking them early and letting them ripen on the way to the store.
Homework #19
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument in Homework #18?
A. Overripe vegetables are more nutritious than underripe ones.
B. Vegetables destined for freezing and those destined for the grocery store are picked at the same time.
C. Fresh vegetables are refrigerated during transport to prevent them from spoiling.
D. Many people who live near farms can purchase vegetables directly from the farmers.
E. Tests have shown that fresh vegetables taste a lot better than frozen vegetables.
A. Overripe vegetables are more nutritious than underripe ones.
B. Vegetables destined for freezing and those destined for the grocery store are picked at the same time.
C. Fresh vegetables are refrigerated during transport to prevent them from spoiling.
D. Many people who live near farms can purchase vegetables directly from the farmers.
E. Tests have shown that fresh vegetables taste a lot better than frozen vegetables.
Homework #17 Answer
Toy manufacturer: "The MegaBall rubber ball is very expensive to make. We should switch to a cheaper brand of rubber to make the MegaBall."
Marketing analyst: "But the MegaBall sells so well! People buy it because it bounces higher than any other ball. No other kind of rubber bounces that high. We should stick with what we know we can sell."
On which one of the following issues do the speakers above disagree?
A. Whether the rubber used to make the MegaBall is more expensive than other materials.
(A) is incorrect because this fact is not in dispute. The manufacturer makes this claim, and the analyst does not dispute it; rather, the analyst argues that they should continue using the more expensive rubber because its properties are the reason the ball sells so well. In other words, the manufacturer says it's expensive, but the analyst argues that it's worth the extra cost. Both speakers' arguments are compatible with the fact that the rubber is more expensive than other materials.
B. Whether the MegaBall sells as well as it is supposed to sell.
(B) is incorrect because it is also not in dispute. Nothing in the manufacturer's statement suggests he is concerned about sales of the MegaBall; his only concern is the cost of the rubber used to manufacture it. The analyst's statement might suggest that he thinks the manufacturer is unaware of this or has not taken it into consideration, but there is no evidence in the stimulus that this point is under dispute. The manufacturer could still argue for using a cheaper rubber even if he knows that the ball does sell well.
C. Whether the company should make the MegaBall from a different brand of rubber.
(C) is correct because it is the only matter in dispute. The manufacturer wants to switch to a cheaper brand of rubber, and the analyst's response suggests they should continue using the one they have because it's worth the extra cost. That's the only point of contention in the exchange.
D. Whether they should consider what customers want before they make important business decisions.
(D) is incorrect because it is not in dispute in the above exchange. Even though the analyst might be implying that the manufacturer has not considered this, just because he may think so does not make it true. Nothing in the manufacturer's statement suggests that he does not think customer preferences should be considered; the fact that he has a different priority does not mean that he thinks other factors should not be considered.
E. Whether other rubber materials bounce as high as the rubber they are currently using to make the MegaBall.
(E) is incorrect because the properties of the rubber are not in dispute. The only issue is whether the higher-bouncing rubber is worth the extra cost.
Marketing analyst: "But the MegaBall sells so well! People buy it because it bounces higher than any other ball. No other kind of rubber bounces that high. We should stick with what we know we can sell."
On which one of the following issues do the speakers above disagree?
A. Whether the rubber used to make the MegaBall is more expensive than other materials.
(A) is incorrect because this fact is not in dispute. The manufacturer makes this claim, and the analyst does not dispute it; rather, the analyst argues that they should continue using the more expensive rubber because its properties are the reason the ball sells so well. In other words, the manufacturer says it's expensive, but the analyst argues that it's worth the extra cost. Both speakers' arguments are compatible with the fact that the rubber is more expensive than other materials.
B. Whether the MegaBall sells as well as it is supposed to sell.
(B) is incorrect because it is also not in dispute. Nothing in the manufacturer's statement suggests he is concerned about sales of the MegaBall; his only concern is the cost of the rubber used to manufacture it. The analyst's statement might suggest that he thinks the manufacturer is unaware of this or has not taken it into consideration, but there is no evidence in the stimulus that this point is under dispute. The manufacturer could still argue for using a cheaper rubber even if he knows that the ball does sell well.
C. Whether the company should make the MegaBall from a different brand of rubber.
(C) is correct because it is the only matter in dispute. The manufacturer wants to switch to a cheaper brand of rubber, and the analyst's response suggests they should continue using the one they have because it's worth the extra cost. That's the only point of contention in the exchange.
D. Whether they should consider what customers want before they make important business decisions.
(D) is incorrect because it is not in dispute in the above exchange. Even though the analyst might be implying that the manufacturer has not considered this, just because he may think so does not make it true. Nothing in the manufacturer's statement suggests that he does not think customer preferences should be considered; the fact that he has a different priority does not mean that he thinks other factors should not be considered.
E. Whether other rubber materials bounce as high as the rubber they are currently using to make the MegaBall.
(E) is incorrect because the properties of the rubber are not in dispute. The only issue is whether the higher-bouncing rubber is worth the extra cost.
October 19, 2009
Homework #18
It is healthier to eat frozen vegetables than fresh ones. This is not because freezing makes them more nutritious. In fact, freezing actually causes food to lose some nutrients. Still, frozen vegetables are better for you because crops are usually harvested before they are ripe. Vegetables are at their most nutritious when they are allowed to ripen in the field. However, if they are picked when they are ripe, they would go bad by the time they reached the consumer. That's why they have to be picked early, and allowed to ripen in transit. These fresh vegetables never reach their full nutritional value. On the other hand, vegetables can be picked when they are ripe and then immediately frozen. As a result, frozen vegetables are generally more nutritious than the fresh vegetables we buy at the grocery store.
The above argument is based on which one of the following assumptions?
A. Frozen food companies freeze only the most nutritious kinds of vegetables.
B. Vegetables lose less nutrition from freezing than they do from being picked early.
C. Fresh vegetables are never sold immediately, but rather sit on shelves for a long time.
D. People never freeze the fresh vegetables they buy at the grocery store.
E. All kinds of vegetables ripen at about the same rate in the same amount of time.
The above argument is based on which one of the following assumptions?
A. Frozen food companies freeze only the most nutritious kinds of vegetables.
B. Vegetables lose less nutrition from freezing than they do from being picked early.
C. Fresh vegetables are never sold immediately, but rather sit on shelves for a long time.
D. People never freeze the fresh vegetables they buy at the grocery store.
E. All kinds of vegetables ripen at about the same rate in the same amount of time.
October 16, 2009
Homework #16 Answer
Harry became very frustrated with what a disorganized mess his baseball card collection had become. Sensing Harry's frustration, Harry's brother Archie suggested that Harry organize the cards in a display album, containing special pages to showcase his most valuable cards. Harry went to the store and then looked online for an album he could use. However, none of the albums he found had special showcase pages that were big enough to hold all of his cards. So he told Archie, "That was a stupid suggestion."
Which of the following assumptions has Harry made in dismissing Archie's recommendation?
A. Larger showcase display albums produced in the past were big enough to hold all of Harry's cards.
(A) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. Harry dismissed Archie's suggestion that a display album would help organize Harry's baseball card collection. Harry called it a "stupid suggestion," because he thought it wouldn't work. But (A) is not the assumption upon which that conclusion is based. Harry's frustration stemmed from the fact that the collection was messy and disorganized, not that it was too large to fit into a single display album. Therefore it doesn't matter whether larger albums produced in the past were big enough, so this is not the flaw in Harry's reasoning.
B. Albums without showcase pages are never as effective for organizing baseball cards as are albums that do have showcase pages.
(B) is incorrect because Harry would still be upset with Archie, albeit wrongly, even if this wasn't true. Whether the albums in question have showcase pages or not is not the issue. Harry thinks the albums can't neatly organize his collection because the showcase pages in a single album won't hold all of them; faulty reasoning, but not because of this.
C. Any album large enough to hold all of Harry's cards would contain enough special showcase pages to display all of his most valuable cards.
(C) is incorrect because it also does not represent the flaw in Harry's reasoning. Clearly he's upset because the albums' showcase pages are each too small to hold all of his cards, but whether a hypothetical large-enough album would contain adequate special showcase pages for his most valuable cards is not the point. Harry thinks the albums are no good because the pages are too small and thus won't hold all of the cards, but the issue is why he dismisses Archie's suggestion as "stupid." He has no reason to do so if the size of the collection and album were not the focus or purpose of the suggestion. Archie was suggesting a way to organize the cards, not hold them all.
D. Harry's baseball card collection would not be well-organized if it were displayed in more than one showcase album.
(D) is correct. Harry's problem is that the cards are messy and disorganized; Archie's suggestion is that he organize them in an album. Harry dismisses the suggestion because he can't find an album large enough to hold all of his cards, but the obvious possibility that he's ignoring is that he can use more than one album to organize them. This is the flaw in his reasoning; he assumes, wrongly, that he has to fit all of the cards into one album in order for them to be organized. If this is not the case, then there's no reason for him to denigrate and dismiss Archie's suggestion.
E. Harry's baseball card collection is a mess because he has more cards now than he did last year.
(E) is incorrect because, once again, the size of Harry's collection is not the issue.
Which of the following assumptions has Harry made in dismissing Archie's recommendation?
A. Larger showcase display albums produced in the past were big enough to hold all of Harry's cards.
(A) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. Harry dismissed Archie's suggestion that a display album would help organize Harry's baseball card collection. Harry called it a "stupid suggestion," because he thought it wouldn't work. But (A) is not the assumption upon which that conclusion is based. Harry's frustration stemmed from the fact that the collection was messy and disorganized, not that it was too large to fit into a single display album. Therefore it doesn't matter whether larger albums produced in the past were big enough, so this is not the flaw in Harry's reasoning.
B. Albums without showcase pages are never as effective for organizing baseball cards as are albums that do have showcase pages.
(B) is incorrect because Harry would still be upset with Archie, albeit wrongly, even if this wasn't true. Whether the albums in question have showcase pages or not is not the issue. Harry thinks the albums can't neatly organize his collection because the showcase pages in a single album won't hold all of them; faulty reasoning, but not because of this.
C. Any album large enough to hold all of Harry's cards would contain enough special showcase pages to display all of his most valuable cards.
(C) is incorrect because it also does not represent the flaw in Harry's reasoning. Clearly he's upset because the albums' showcase pages are each too small to hold all of his cards, but whether a hypothetical large-enough album would contain adequate special showcase pages for his most valuable cards is not the point. Harry thinks the albums are no good because the pages are too small and thus won't hold all of the cards, but the issue is why he dismisses Archie's suggestion as "stupid." He has no reason to do so if the size of the collection and album were not the focus or purpose of the suggestion. Archie was suggesting a way to organize the cards, not hold them all.
D. Harry's baseball card collection would not be well-organized if it were displayed in more than one showcase album.
(D) is correct. Harry's problem is that the cards are messy and disorganized; Archie's suggestion is that he organize them in an album. Harry dismisses the suggestion because he can't find an album large enough to hold all of his cards, but the obvious possibility that he's ignoring is that he can use more than one album to organize them. This is the flaw in his reasoning; he assumes, wrongly, that he has to fit all of the cards into one album in order for them to be organized. If this is not the case, then there's no reason for him to denigrate and dismiss Archie's suggestion.
E. Harry's baseball card collection is a mess because he has more cards now than he did last year.
(E) is incorrect because, once again, the size of Harry's collection is not the issue.
Homework #17
Toy manufacturer: "The MegaBall rubber ball is very expensive to make. We should switch to a cheaper brand of rubber to make the MegaBall."
Marketing analyst: "But the MegaBall sells so well! People buy it because it bounces higher than any other ball. No other kind of rubber bounces that high. We should stick with what we know we can sell."
On which one of the following issues do the speakers above disagree?
A. Whether the rubber used to make the MegaBall is more expensive than other materials.
B. Whether the MegaBall sells as well as it is supposed to sell.
C. Whether the company should make the MegaBall from a different brand of rubber.
D. Whether they should consider what customers want before they make important business decisions.
E. Whether other rubber materials bounce as high as the rubber they are currently using to make the MegaBall.
Marketing analyst: "But the MegaBall sells so well! People buy it because it bounces higher than any other ball. No other kind of rubber bounces that high. We should stick with what we know we can sell."
On which one of the following issues do the speakers above disagree?
A. Whether the rubber used to make the MegaBall is more expensive than other materials.
B. Whether the MegaBall sells as well as it is supposed to sell.
C. Whether the company should make the MegaBall from a different brand of rubber.
D. Whether they should consider what customers want before they make important business decisions.
E. Whether other rubber materials bounce as high as the rubber they are currently using to make the MegaBall.
Homework #15 Answer
A passenger vehicle is defined as any fully-enclosed four-wheeled vehicle with room for at least one other person besides the driver. A semi truck, though it does have enclosed room to transport one non-driving passenger, always has more than four wheels. A jeep, though it may have four wheels and enough room for a driver plus at least one passenger, is rarely fully enclosed. A postal van, though it may be enclosed and have four wheels, usually does not have room for any passengers other than the driver.
If all of the above statements are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?
A. If an automobile is neither a semi truck, nor a jeep, nor a postal van, then it is not a fully enclosed four-wheeled vehicle.
(A) is incorrect because it could obviously still be a passenger vehicle, which according to the stimulus is a fully-enclosed four-wheeled vehicle. Of course it could be something else, meaning it COULD be an open vehicle and/or one with more or fewer than four wheels, but it doesn't HAVE to be.
B. If an automobile is not a semi truck, or a jeep, or a postal van, then it must be a passenger vehicle.
(B) is incorrect because the stimulus leaves open the possibility that there are more types of automobiles besides the four that are described. We can reach this conclusion logically, regardless of our outside knowledge about automobiles, because there is no language in the stimulus that tells us an automobile MUST or CAN ONLY be one of the four types described.
C. If a jeep is fully enclosed with four wheels and room for non-driving passengers, then it is both a jeep and a passenger vehicle.
(C) is correct. The key to answering a question like this is being able to determine, and more importantly to distinguish, what MUST be, what COULD be, and what CANNOT be. All of the descriptions in the stimulus contain qualifiers that indicate whether the particular characteristic is ALWAYS true, USUALLY true, RARELY true, or NEVER true of that type of vehicle. If something is true "usually," "rarely," "sometimes," "often," "seldom," etc., that means it CAN be true but it doesn't HAVE to be true, and it can also be false but doesn't have to be false. The stimulus tells us that a jeep is "rarely fully enclosed," not that it is never fully enclosed, which means it CAN be fully enclosed. Since the question contemplates a fully-enclosed jeep, and since any fully-enclosed vehicle with four wheels and room for two or more people is a passenger vehicle, then such a vehicle would be both a jeep and a passenger vehicle. Even if the stimulus told us that a jeep was never fully enclosed, this would still be the correct answer because the answer itself contemplates a fully-enclosed jeep, and what such a vehicle would be if it did exist.
D. Postal vans are more like passenger vehicles than semi trucks are.
(D) is incorrect not because it is a matter of opinion, but because there are no objective, logical criteria for comparison, i.e., whether having the same number of wheels makes a vehicle "more like" another than if it had the same amount of passenger room. Postal vans are similar to passenger vehicles in that they tend to be enclosed and have four wheels, but they have no room for passengers. Semi trucks are like passenger vehicles in that they are enclosed and have room for passengers but they have more than four wheels. Each compared vehicle therefore shares two of the three stated characteristics with passenger vehicles, but we don't know which characteristic is more important, so it is impossible to say that either is definitively "more like" a passenger vehicle than the other.
E. Some postal vans may be considered to be jeeps.
(E) is incorrect because the descriptions of both jeeps and postal vans are so equivocal that even if the categories could overlap, it is also possible that they don't, i.e., that no postal vans are jeeps. The facts that jeeps are RARELY enclosed (which postal vans always are) and that postal vans USUALLY have no passenger room (which jeeps always do), suggest that it's unlikely that a postal van is also a jeep, but not impossible; still, we cannot conclude with any certainty that there must be postal vans out there that are also jeeps. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't; remember the question is what MUST be true, not what COULD be true. (Note also the use of the phrase "may be," as opposed to "can be" or "could be." As you know from elementary school, "may" implies permission, not possibility; i.e., that such vehicles DO exist, not that they CAN exist.)
If all of the above statements are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?
A. If an automobile is neither a semi truck, nor a jeep, nor a postal van, then it is not a fully enclosed four-wheeled vehicle.
(A) is incorrect because it could obviously still be a passenger vehicle, which according to the stimulus is a fully-enclosed four-wheeled vehicle. Of course it could be something else, meaning it COULD be an open vehicle and/or one with more or fewer than four wheels, but it doesn't HAVE to be.
B. If an automobile is not a semi truck, or a jeep, or a postal van, then it must be a passenger vehicle.
(B) is incorrect because the stimulus leaves open the possibility that there are more types of automobiles besides the four that are described. We can reach this conclusion logically, regardless of our outside knowledge about automobiles, because there is no language in the stimulus that tells us an automobile MUST or CAN ONLY be one of the four types described.
C. If a jeep is fully enclosed with four wheels and room for non-driving passengers, then it is both a jeep and a passenger vehicle.
(C) is correct. The key to answering a question like this is being able to determine, and more importantly to distinguish, what MUST be, what COULD be, and what CANNOT be. All of the descriptions in the stimulus contain qualifiers that indicate whether the particular characteristic is ALWAYS true, USUALLY true, RARELY true, or NEVER true of that type of vehicle. If something is true "usually," "rarely," "sometimes," "often," "seldom," etc., that means it CAN be true but it doesn't HAVE to be true, and it can also be false but doesn't have to be false. The stimulus tells us that a jeep is "rarely fully enclosed," not that it is never fully enclosed, which means it CAN be fully enclosed. Since the question contemplates a fully-enclosed jeep, and since any fully-enclosed vehicle with four wheels and room for two or more people is a passenger vehicle, then such a vehicle would be both a jeep and a passenger vehicle. Even if the stimulus told us that a jeep was never fully enclosed, this would still be the correct answer because the answer itself contemplates a fully-enclosed jeep, and what such a vehicle would be if it did exist.
D. Postal vans are more like passenger vehicles than semi trucks are.
(D) is incorrect not because it is a matter of opinion, but because there are no objective, logical criteria for comparison, i.e., whether having the same number of wheels makes a vehicle "more like" another than if it had the same amount of passenger room. Postal vans are similar to passenger vehicles in that they tend to be enclosed and have four wheels, but they have no room for passengers. Semi trucks are like passenger vehicles in that they are enclosed and have room for passengers but they have more than four wheels. Each compared vehicle therefore shares two of the three stated characteristics with passenger vehicles, but we don't know which characteristic is more important, so it is impossible to say that either is definitively "more like" a passenger vehicle than the other.
E. Some postal vans may be considered to be jeeps.
(E) is incorrect because the descriptions of both jeeps and postal vans are so equivocal that even if the categories could overlap, it is also possible that they don't, i.e., that no postal vans are jeeps. The facts that jeeps are RARELY enclosed (which postal vans always are) and that postal vans USUALLY have no passenger room (which jeeps always do), suggest that it's unlikely that a postal van is also a jeep, but not impossible; still, we cannot conclude with any certainty that there must be postal vans out there that are also jeeps. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't; remember the question is what MUST be true, not what COULD be true. (Note also the use of the phrase "may be," as opposed to "can be" or "could be." As you know from elementary school, "may" implies permission, not possibility; i.e., that such vehicles DO exist, not that they CAN exist.)
October 8, 2009
Homework #16
Harry became very frustrated with what a disorganized mess his baseball card collection had become. Sensing Harry's frustration, Harry's brother Archie suggested that Harry organize the cards in a display album, containing special pages to showcase his most valuable cards. Harry went to the store and then looked online for an album he could use. However, none of the albums he found had special showcase pages that were big enough to hold all of his cards. So he told Archie, "That was a stupid suggestion."
Which of the following assumptions has Harry made in dismissing Archie's recommendation?
A. Larger showcase display albums produced in the past were big enough to hold all of Harry's cards.
B. Albums without showcase pages are never as effective for organizing baseball cards as are albums that do have showcase pages.
C. Any album large enough to hold all of Harry's cards would contain enough special showcase pages to display all of his most valuable cards.
D. Harry's baseball card collection would not be well-organized if it were displayed in more than one showcase album.
E. Harry's baseball card collection is a mess because he has more cards now than he did last year.
Which of the following assumptions has Harry made in dismissing Archie's recommendation?
A. Larger showcase display albums produced in the past were big enough to hold all of Harry's cards.
B. Albums without showcase pages are never as effective for organizing baseball cards as are albums that do have showcase pages.
C. Any album large enough to hold all of Harry's cards would contain enough special showcase pages to display all of his most valuable cards.
D. Harry's baseball card collection would not be well-organized if it were displayed in more than one showcase album.
E. Harry's baseball card collection is a mess because he has more cards now than he did last year.
October 7, 2009
Homework #14 Answer
Due to a rash of behavior problems among a particular group of high school students, the principal has canceled all school extracurricular activities for the next month. The organizers of a pep rally, which is scheduled to take place two weeks from now, have made the case that their event should be allowed. They have argued that the increase in school spirit brought about by the pep rally will bond everyone together, which in turn will result in fewer behavior problems in school in the future.
The organizers of the pep rally assume which one of the following in making their argument?
A. The principal did not intend to cancel the pep rally along with the other activities.
(A) is incorrect because the organizers' argument does not depend on this being true. Remember, an assumption question asks what MUST be true for the argument to hold water, not what COULD be true, what is most likely to be true, or what conclusion can be drawn from the stimulus. The question you need to ask is, if this is NOT true, is the argument still valid? The organizers are arguing that the principal, who has canceled all activities for the next month, should make an exception for their pep rally because it will help solve the behavior problem. Whether the principal intended to cancel the pep rally along with everything else, and we can probably assume she did, doesn't make their argument any more or less persuasive either way. If she intended to make an exception then the argument is moot and a waste of time; if she didn't, then the argument can still be made that she should, but the argument doesn't depend on this fact one way or the other.
B. The students with behavior problems will be participating in the pep rally.
(B) is correct. The only way the pep rally can have the desired effect on the behavior problems, the effect the organizers claim it will have, is if the students responsible for those problems will be participating in the pep rally. If not, then the argument falls apart, and the principal will have no reason to make the exception based on the organizers' claim.
C. No other activities besides the pep rally should be allowed to take place during the next month, unless it can be shown that such activities will "bond everyone together."
(C) is incorrect because the organizers are only concerned with their own event, the pep rally. They are not trying to prevent the principal from making exceptions for other events, nor are they trying to limit the basis of any exception made to the one they have proposed. In other words, the argument does not depend on what the standard should be for determining whether ANY exceptions should be made. Note also that this is expressed as an opinion (note the word "should") and therefore cannot be an assumption, because it cannot be either true or false.
D. A pep rally is the most effective type of extracurricular activity to deal with the problem of bad behavior in school.
(D) is incorrect because even if it is not true, the argument is still valid. Even if there are more effective ways of dealing with bad behavior, the organizers can still make their case that the pep rally will help in this regard, and the argument would not be any more or less persuasive. The statement in (D), if true, would certainly help, but it's not a necessary part of the argument; it's not an underlying assumption that MUST be true for the argument to be effective. This is an assumption question, not a support question.
E. The principal will allow other canceled events to take place once she sees the positive effect that the pep rally will have on the students.
(E) is a prediction, not an opinion, but it's still incorrect because the argument does not depend on it being true. The organizers are trying to get the principal to make an exception for their pep rally. Whether she will make more exceptions later once she sees the benefits of making this one is debatable, but whether she does so or not does not make the present argument any more or less persuasive, or more or less likely to succeed.
The organizers of the pep rally assume which one of the following in making their argument?
A. The principal did not intend to cancel the pep rally along with the other activities.
(A) is incorrect because the organizers' argument does not depend on this being true. Remember, an assumption question asks what MUST be true for the argument to hold water, not what COULD be true, what is most likely to be true, or what conclusion can be drawn from the stimulus. The question you need to ask is, if this is NOT true, is the argument still valid? The organizers are arguing that the principal, who has canceled all activities for the next month, should make an exception for their pep rally because it will help solve the behavior problem. Whether the principal intended to cancel the pep rally along with everything else, and we can probably assume she did, doesn't make their argument any more or less persuasive either way. If she intended to make an exception then the argument is moot and a waste of time; if she didn't, then the argument can still be made that she should, but the argument doesn't depend on this fact one way or the other.
B. The students with behavior problems will be participating in the pep rally.
(B) is correct. The only way the pep rally can have the desired effect on the behavior problems, the effect the organizers claim it will have, is if the students responsible for those problems will be participating in the pep rally. If not, then the argument falls apart, and the principal will have no reason to make the exception based on the organizers' claim.
C. No other activities besides the pep rally should be allowed to take place during the next month, unless it can be shown that such activities will "bond everyone together."
(C) is incorrect because the organizers are only concerned with their own event, the pep rally. They are not trying to prevent the principal from making exceptions for other events, nor are they trying to limit the basis of any exception made to the one they have proposed. In other words, the argument does not depend on what the standard should be for determining whether ANY exceptions should be made. Note also that this is expressed as an opinion (note the word "should") and therefore cannot be an assumption, because it cannot be either true or false.
D. A pep rally is the most effective type of extracurricular activity to deal with the problem of bad behavior in school.
(D) is incorrect because even if it is not true, the argument is still valid. Even if there are more effective ways of dealing with bad behavior, the organizers can still make their case that the pep rally will help in this regard, and the argument would not be any more or less persuasive. The statement in (D), if true, would certainly help, but it's not a necessary part of the argument; it's not an underlying assumption that MUST be true for the argument to be effective. This is an assumption question, not a support question.
E. The principal will allow other canceled events to take place once she sees the positive effect that the pep rally will have on the students.
(E) is a prediction, not an opinion, but it's still incorrect because the argument does not depend on it being true. The organizers are trying to get the principal to make an exception for their pep rally. Whether she will make more exceptions later once she sees the benefits of making this one is debatable, but whether she does so or not does not make the present argument any more or less persuasive, or more or less likely to succeed.
Homework #15
A passenger vehicle is defined as any fully-enclosed four-wheeled vehicle with room for at least one other person besides the driver. A semi truck, though it does have enclosed room to transport one non-driving passenger, always has more than four wheels. A jeep, though it may have four wheels and enough room for a driver plus at least one passenger, is rarely fully enclosed. A postal van, though it may be enclosed and have four wheels, usually does not have room for any passengers other than the driver.
If all of the above statements are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?
A. If an automobile is neither a semi truck, nor a jeep, nor a postal van, then it is not a fully enclosed four-wheeled vehicle.
B. If an automobile is not a semi truck, or a jeep, or a postal van, then it must be a passenger vehicle.
C. If a jeep is fully enclosed with four wheels and room for non-driving passengers, then it is both a jeep and a passenger vehicle.
D. Postal vans are more like passenger vehicles than semi trucks are.
E. Some postal vans may be considered to be jeeps.
If all of the above statements are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?
A. If an automobile is neither a semi truck, nor a jeep, nor a postal van, then it is not a fully enclosed four-wheeled vehicle.
B. If an automobile is not a semi truck, or a jeep, or a postal van, then it must be a passenger vehicle.
C. If a jeep is fully enclosed with four wheels and room for non-driving passengers, then it is both a jeep and a passenger vehicle.
D. Postal vans are more like passenger vehicles than semi trucks are.
E. Some postal vans may be considered to be jeeps.
October 6, 2009
Homework #13 Answer
All fish live in water. All sharks live in water.
Which one of the following can be logically concluded, based SOLELY on the statements above?
A. All sharks are fish.
(A) is incorrect even though it is true, because one cannot conclude this based SOLELY on the two statements above. Our outside knowledge about the animal kingdom tells us that sharks are fish, but the stimulus only tells us that they all live in water. It also tells us that all fish live in water, but does not create a category of "fish" that includes "sharks" as an example within that category. Neither statement excludes the possibility that other creatures besides fish (and sharks) live in water, and the two statements taken together, without more, do not exclude the possibility that sharks are not fish.
This question is an example of a syllogism, an attempt to define categories of things and examples of things within those categories and/or excluded from those categories. For example: All poodles are dogs. Fifi is a poodle. Therefore, Fifi is a dog. However, although all poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles. If all poodles are dogs, and Fifi is a dog, that doesn't mean that Fifi is a poodle.
(A) is sort of a trick answer, because as mentioned above we all know that sharks are fish and can't not be fish. Choosing (A) is an example of reaching the "right" conclusion for the wrong reasons, by substituting intuition for logic.
B. All fish are sharks.
(B) is incorrect and untrue, but if you answered (A), then (B) would have to be true as well. The stimulus states that both "fish" and "sharks" live in water, but doesn't tell us which is a category and which is an example within that category. If the fact that both sets of creatures live in water means that one is a subset of the other, without more, how do we know which is which?
C. If it lives in water, it must be a fish.
(C) is incorrect because the stimulus does not tell us that only fish live in water, it tells us that all fish live in water. Difference. If we know it is a fish, we know it lives in water because they all live in water, meaning that (contrapositive) there is no fish that does not live in water. But again, the stimulus does not exclude the possibility of creatures that are not fish who do live in water. If all we know is that it lives in water, it could be a fish, it is probably a fish, but it could be something else as well.
D. If it is not a fish, it does not live in water.
(D) is also incorrect because the stimulus does not tell us that only fish live in water. Once again, the stimulus does not exclude the possibility that creatures other than fish (and sharks) live in water. If non-fish can live in water, then the fact that a creature is not a fish does not by itself tell us whether the creature lives in water, let alone prove that it does not.
E. None of the above.
(E) is correct.
Which one of the following can be logically concluded, based SOLELY on the statements above?
A. All sharks are fish.
(A) is incorrect even though it is true, because one cannot conclude this based SOLELY on the two statements above. Our outside knowledge about the animal kingdom tells us that sharks are fish, but the stimulus only tells us that they all live in water. It also tells us that all fish live in water, but does not create a category of "fish" that includes "sharks" as an example within that category. Neither statement excludes the possibility that other creatures besides fish (and sharks) live in water, and the two statements taken together, without more, do not exclude the possibility that sharks are not fish.
This question is an example of a syllogism, an attempt to define categories of things and examples of things within those categories and/or excluded from those categories. For example: All poodles are dogs. Fifi is a poodle. Therefore, Fifi is a dog. However, although all poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles. If all poodles are dogs, and Fifi is a dog, that doesn't mean that Fifi is a poodle.
(A) is sort of a trick answer, because as mentioned above we all know that sharks are fish and can't not be fish. Choosing (A) is an example of reaching the "right" conclusion for the wrong reasons, by substituting intuition for logic.
B. All fish are sharks.
(B) is incorrect and untrue, but if you answered (A), then (B) would have to be true as well. The stimulus states that both "fish" and "sharks" live in water, but doesn't tell us which is a category and which is an example within that category. If the fact that both sets of creatures live in water means that one is a subset of the other, without more, how do we know which is which?
C. If it lives in water, it must be a fish.
(C) is incorrect because the stimulus does not tell us that only fish live in water, it tells us that all fish live in water. Difference. If we know it is a fish, we know it lives in water because they all live in water, meaning that (contrapositive) there is no fish that does not live in water. But again, the stimulus does not exclude the possibility of creatures that are not fish who do live in water. If all we know is that it lives in water, it could be a fish, it is probably a fish, but it could be something else as well.
D. If it is not a fish, it does not live in water.
(D) is also incorrect because the stimulus does not tell us that only fish live in water. Once again, the stimulus does not exclude the possibility that creatures other than fish (and sharks) live in water. If non-fish can live in water, then the fact that a creature is not a fish does not by itself tell us whether the creature lives in water, let alone prove that it does not.
E. None of the above.
(E) is correct.
Homework #14
Due to a rash of behavior problems among a particular group of high school students, the principal has canceled all school extracurricular activities for the next month. The organizers of a pep rally, which is scheduled to take place two weeks from now, have made the case that their event should be allowed. They have argued that the increase in school spirit brought about by the pep rally will bond everyone together, which in turn will result in fewer behavior problems in school in the future.
The organizers of the pep rally assume which one of the following in making their argument?
A. The principal did not intend to cancel the pep rally along with the other activities.
B. The students with behavior problems will be participating in the pep rally.
C. No other activities besides the pep rally should be allowed to take place during the next month, unless it can be shown that such activities will "bond everyone together."
D. A pep rally is the most effective type of extracurricular activity to deal with the problem of bad behavior in school.
E. The principal will allow other canceled events to take place once she sees the positive effect that the pep rally will have on the students.
The organizers of the pep rally assume which one of the following in making their argument?
A. The principal did not intend to cancel the pep rally along with the other activities.
B. The students with behavior problems will be participating in the pep rally.
C. No other activities besides the pep rally should be allowed to take place during the next month, unless it can be shown that such activities will "bond everyone together."
D. A pep rally is the most effective type of extracurricular activity to deal with the problem of bad behavior in school.
E. The principal will allow other canceled events to take place once she sees the positive effect that the pep rally will have on the students.
October 5, 2009
Homework #12 Answer
The "KUVA" fabric, produced by American Synthetics, Inc., was once thought to be a miraculous invention because it was so strong and durable. However, industrial accidents over the past three years have proven that the material is highly flammable (i.e., it catches fire and burns easily). This discovery was very bad news for manufacturers who use the "KUVA" fabric in their products. The weaker fabrics they had been using before caused many of their products to fail; the "KUVA" fabric provided an excellent alternative. Now that they can't use the "KUVA" fabric anymore, manufacturers will have to eliminate all American Synthetics materials from their inventories.
Which of the following assumptions best justifies the author's conclusion?
A. Early tests showing that the "KUVA" fabric was safe now appear to have been incomplete.
(A) is incorrect. The author's conclusion is that manufacturers now have to eliminate all materials made by American Synthetics, not just KUVA, from their inventories. This is obviously an unwarranted conclusion unless all American Synthetics products are dangerous, but there's no evidence here that anything they make other than the KUVA fabric is dangerous. Whether the tests of the KUVA fabric were incomplete is irrelevant; the issue is whether the fact that the KUVA fabric is unsafe renders ALL American Synthetics products unsafe. It doesn't, unless they all contain the KUVA material.
To use an historical corollary, the Ford Pinto automobile of the 1970s was infamous for having a tendency to explode when hit in the rear. The fact that the Pinto was unsafe did not mean that ALL Ford vehicles were unsafe. If crash tests on the Pinto had turned out to have been incomplete, it might reflect poorly on Ford, but would not require all Ford owners to get rid of their cars, or for dealers to stop selling all Ford models.
B. There have been more industrial fires in plants that use the "KUVA" fabric than in those that don't.
(B) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. The issue in the author's conclusion is not the KUVA fabric, it's ALL American Synthetics fabrics. Again, the fact that KUVA is unsafe does not mean that all American Synthetics products are unsafe.
C. The "KUVA" fabric is not as strong or durable as originally believed.
(C) is incorrect because it is not only irrelevant but calls attention to the wrong property of the fabric. It's lack of strength or durability was not what made it unsafe; its flammability did that. Still, as mentioned repeatedly, KUVA itself is not the issue.
D. All materials made by American Synthetics contain some form of the "KUVA" fabric.
(D) is correct.
E. Manufacturers will probably be sued by people who have been injured in accidents caused by products containing the "KUVA" fabric.
(E) is incorrect even if it is probably true. Even if you argue that manufacturers would drop all American Synthetics products in retaliation for such suits, the cause would be too indirect to support the author's specific conclusion.
Which of the following assumptions best justifies the author's conclusion?
A. Early tests showing that the "KUVA" fabric was safe now appear to have been incomplete.
(A) is incorrect. The author's conclusion is that manufacturers now have to eliminate all materials made by American Synthetics, not just KUVA, from their inventories. This is obviously an unwarranted conclusion unless all American Synthetics products are dangerous, but there's no evidence here that anything they make other than the KUVA fabric is dangerous. Whether the tests of the KUVA fabric were incomplete is irrelevant; the issue is whether the fact that the KUVA fabric is unsafe renders ALL American Synthetics products unsafe. It doesn't, unless they all contain the KUVA material.
To use an historical corollary, the Ford Pinto automobile of the 1970s was infamous for having a tendency to explode when hit in the rear. The fact that the Pinto was unsafe did not mean that ALL Ford vehicles were unsafe. If crash tests on the Pinto had turned out to have been incomplete, it might reflect poorly on Ford, but would not require all Ford owners to get rid of their cars, or for dealers to stop selling all Ford models.
B. There have been more industrial fires in plants that use the "KUVA" fabric than in those that don't.
(B) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. The issue in the author's conclusion is not the KUVA fabric, it's ALL American Synthetics fabrics. Again, the fact that KUVA is unsafe does not mean that all American Synthetics products are unsafe.
C. The "KUVA" fabric is not as strong or durable as originally believed.
(C) is incorrect because it is not only irrelevant but calls attention to the wrong property of the fabric. It's lack of strength or durability was not what made it unsafe; its flammability did that. Still, as mentioned repeatedly, KUVA itself is not the issue.
D. All materials made by American Synthetics contain some form of the "KUVA" fabric.
(D) is correct.
E. Manufacturers will probably be sued by people who have been injured in accidents caused by products containing the "KUVA" fabric.
(E) is incorrect even if it is probably true. Even if you argue that manufacturers would drop all American Synthetics products in retaliation for such suits, the cause would be too indirect to support the author's specific conclusion.
Homework #13
All fish live in water. All sharks live in water.
Which one of the following can be logically concluded, based SOLELY on the statements above?
A. All sharks are fish.
B. All fish are sharks.
C. If it lives in water, it must be a fish.
D. If it is not a fish, it does not live in water.
E. None of the above.
Which one of the following can be logically concluded, based SOLELY on the statements above?
A. All sharks are fish.
B. All fish are sharks.
C. If it lives in water, it must be a fish.
D. If it is not a fish, it does not live in water.
E. None of the above.
October 2, 2009
Homework for Oct. 2-4 Weekend
As instructed in class, read the passages in the assignment packet for the writing project, and answer the multiple choice questions.
In case you don't have the printed copy, click here to read it online. We're doing Part A, pp. 2-7.
If you want to get a head start on writing the essay, click here, here, here and/or here.
In case you don't have the printed copy, click here to read it online. We're doing Part A, pp. 2-7.
If you want to get a head start on writing the essay, click here, here, here and/or here.
October 1, 2009
Homework #11 Answer
Salesman: "The revolutionary new Shepherd's Gate Protection System represents the latest in sheep-tending technology! The built-in sensors recognize the scent of predators from miles around. When your flock is in danger of attack, the electronic gates surrounding the flock will quickly slam shut, keeping any unwanted animals away, and your flock safer than ever! Sure, the system is prone to false alarms, but you know what they say: Better safe than sorry!"
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the salesman's argument?
A. Sheep cannot be injured by the electronic gates when they quickly slam shut.
(A) is incorrect even though it probably helps the salesman's pitch; it is not as good an answer as (B). Although this might be a selling point, the sales pitch as stated in the stimulus suggests that the customer's main concern is protecting his sheep from predators, and that the customer might hesitate to buy the system because it might not work properly, that the gates might close when the shepherd doesn't want them to, not because his sheep might be injured by the gates when they close. If such danger exists, it exists whether the alarm is false or not, but the salesman never mentions it; he only mentions false alarms as a cause for concern. The customer is not likely to leave his sheep unprotected because of a risk that they might be injured by a security system.
B. Similar electronic protection systems are currently used to protect cattle from attack by predators.
(B) is the best answer. The sales pitch in the stimulus suggests that the salesman, after describing how the system works, wants to assuage customers' concerns that it may not always work properly because it is prone to false alarms. The fact that similar systems are currently being used in similar applications suggests that the system works well enough and is suitable for its purpose, which bears out the "better safe than sorry" cliché at the end. Unlike (A), this claim addresses the specific risk that the customer is concerned about, and the specific decision he needs to make: whether the system will protect his flock from predators.
C. Roughly half the time, when the gates close automatically, it's because of a false alarm.
(C) is incorrect because it does not support the salesman's argument that the system will work as advertised. The salesman is trying to minimize the problem of false alarms. If "roughly half" of the system's activations are caused by false alarms, that's a big problem. That would make the customer less likely to buy the system, not more.
D. Some sheep predators have been hunted almost to extinction.
(D) is incorrect because even if it is true, it's irrelevant. It has no impact on the quality of the salesman's pitch or whether the customer is likely to buy the system.
E. Flocks of sheep are rarely attacked by predators.
(E) is incorrect because if it were true, the buyer would not need a fancy high-tech security system, let alone one "prone to false alarms," to protect his sheep. This would make the customer less likely to buy the product, not more.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the salesman's argument?
A. Sheep cannot be injured by the electronic gates when they quickly slam shut.
(A) is incorrect even though it probably helps the salesman's pitch; it is not as good an answer as (B). Although this might be a selling point, the sales pitch as stated in the stimulus suggests that the customer's main concern is protecting his sheep from predators, and that the customer might hesitate to buy the system because it might not work properly, that the gates might close when the shepherd doesn't want them to, not because his sheep might be injured by the gates when they close. If such danger exists, it exists whether the alarm is false or not, but the salesman never mentions it; he only mentions false alarms as a cause for concern. The customer is not likely to leave his sheep unprotected because of a risk that they might be injured by a security system.
B. Similar electronic protection systems are currently used to protect cattle from attack by predators.
(B) is the best answer. The sales pitch in the stimulus suggests that the salesman, after describing how the system works, wants to assuage customers' concerns that it may not always work properly because it is prone to false alarms. The fact that similar systems are currently being used in similar applications suggests that the system works well enough and is suitable for its purpose, which bears out the "better safe than sorry" cliché at the end. Unlike (A), this claim addresses the specific risk that the customer is concerned about, and the specific decision he needs to make: whether the system will protect his flock from predators.
C. Roughly half the time, when the gates close automatically, it's because of a false alarm.
(C) is incorrect because it does not support the salesman's argument that the system will work as advertised. The salesman is trying to minimize the problem of false alarms. If "roughly half" of the system's activations are caused by false alarms, that's a big problem. That would make the customer less likely to buy the system, not more.
D. Some sheep predators have been hunted almost to extinction.
(D) is incorrect because even if it is true, it's irrelevant. It has no impact on the quality of the salesman's pitch or whether the customer is likely to buy the system.
E. Flocks of sheep are rarely attacked by predators.
(E) is incorrect because if it were true, the buyer would not need a fancy high-tech security system, let alone one "prone to false alarms," to protect his sheep. This would make the customer less likely to buy the product, not more.
Homework #12
The "KUVA" fabric, produced by American Synthetics, Inc., was once thought to be a miraculous invention because it was so strong and durable. However, industrial accidents over the past three years have proven that the material is highly flammable (i.e., it catches fire and burns easily). This discovery was very bad news for manufacturers who use the "KUVA" fabric in their products. The weaker fabrics they had been using before caused many of their products to fail; the "KUVA" fabric provided an excellent alternative. Now that they can't use the "KUVA" fabric anymore, manufacturers will have to eliminate all American Synthetics materials from their inventories.
Which of the following assumptions best justifies the author's conclusion?
A. Early tests showing that the "KUVA" fabric was safe now appear to have been incomplete.
B. There have been more industrial fires in plants that use the "KUVA" fabric than in those that don't.
C. The "KUVA" fabric is not as strong or durable as originally believed.
D. All materials made by American Synthetics contain some form of the "KUVA" fabric.
E. Manufacturers will probably be sued by people who have been injured in accidents caused by products containing the "KUVA" fabric.
Which of the following assumptions best justifies the author's conclusion?
A. Early tests showing that the "KUVA" fabric was safe now appear to have been incomplete.
B. There have been more industrial fires in plants that use the "KUVA" fabric than in those that don't.
C. The "KUVA" fabric is not as strong or durable as originally believed.
D. All materials made by American Synthetics contain some form of the "KUVA" fabric.
E. Manufacturers will probably be sued by people who have been injured in accidents caused by products containing the "KUVA" fabric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)