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.
October 8, 2009
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)