A student at any college within the CUNY system is permitted and encouraged to take classes at other CUNY schools when they complement the offerings of his home institution. For example, a student enrolled at Brooklyn College can take a class at Queens College, Hunter College, College of Staten Island, etc. Please note, however, that the final determination of credits earned and requirements satisfied remains with the student's own academic dean at his own school, even if the other school where he takes the class has a different policy. In other words, a student enrolled at Brooklyn College who takes a class at Queens College has to meet the requirements of Brooklyn College, even if Queens College's requirements are different. The rules governing a student's course of study depend solely on the institution in which he is officially enrolled, not on his physical presence in any given classroom.
The above policy statement implies that
A. any student admitted to a CUNY school will be allowed to officially enroll at another CUNY school.
(A) is incorrect because nothing in the stimulus implies a relationship between where one is admitted and where one is enrolled. It is important to understand what these words mean, and the differences between them, in order to successfully answer this question. Application comes first, then admittance (acceptance), then enrollment (commitment to attend and payment of tuition), then classes taken and credits earned, then if requirements are met, graduation. The argument here concerns any student who is already enrolled in, and expects to graduate from, one particular CUNY college. The stimulus tells us that a student enrolled in one school may take classes at another, not that a student admitted to one school (an event which comes before enrollment) may enroll at another. It doesn't tell us anything about how one proceeds from admission to enrollment; that process is outside the scope of the argument.
B. a college may exclude a student enrolled in the CUNY system from its non-academic programs.
(B) is incorrect because it is also not implied by the stimulus. "Non-academic programs" are beyond the scope of the argument, as is whether or not any college may exclude any CUNY student from anything. The fact that CUNY colleges allow students from other CUNY colleges to take academic classes does not imply that they do NOT allow such students to participate in non-academic activities.
C. each college's Admissions Office is the sole judge of who is eligible to attend its classes.
(C) is incorrect because the argument is not concerned with who gets to decide whether or not a student may attend classes at any particular college. In fact, the stimulus makes the blanket statement that students are "permitted and encouraged" to take classes outside of their home school within the CUNY system. The argument here is concerned with whether or not any classes taken at other colleges will count toward the student's degree at his own college.
D. students are not required to follow rules of conduct established by colleges at which they are not enrolled.
(D) is incorrect because it's absurd; there's no reason, in the stimulus or otherwise, to think anyone is not subject to the rules of conduct established by any institution in which he becomes involved, or even on whose property he sets foot. The argument is that students may take classes at other colleges but that their own college gets to decide whether to count those classes toward the student's degree. This does not, by any stretch, mean that the student would not be subject to the other college's rules and regulations. In any event, rules of conduct are not the same thing as academic requirements, and are therefore outside the scope of the argument, so (D) cannot be correct.
E. a student's academic dean at his own school can refuse to accept course credits for classes the student has taken at a different CUNY school.
(E) is correct because it's the only logical choice; it is the most obvious implication of the stated policy. The stimulus clearly and unequivocally states that a student's own academic dean at his own school gets to decide whether or not a class taken at another college will count toward the student's degree requirements. If it's the dean's decision, then the dean can either accept the credits or refuse to accept the credits.
December 3, 2009
Homework #38
Samuel Taylor Coleridge must have found the inspiration for "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" in Hakluyt's 1600 edition of the real-life sea narrative, The Southern Voyage of John Davis. Although Coleridge did not mention the 200-year-old work in his notes, both "Mariner" and Southern Voyage prominently feature a tale of misfortune resulting from the killing of a bird. They also both feature a rotting ship drifting out of control in the tropics, and a scene of a dying man cursing his fate. Furthermore, William Wordsworth, Coleridge's good friend and occasional collaborator, had an interest in books about actual historical sea voyages, and may have owned a copy of Davis' story.
The author of the passage makes his point primarily by
A. drawing an analogy between literature and seafaring.
B. reinterpreting a classic literary work.
C. paralleling an author's work with the events of the author's life.
D. supporting a claim with circumstantial evidence.
E. disputing a controversial claim of literary influence.
The author of the passage makes his point primarily by
A. drawing an analogy between literature and seafaring.
B. reinterpreting a classic literary work.
C. paralleling an author's work with the events of the author's life.
D. supporting a claim with circumstantial evidence.
E. disputing a controversial claim of literary influence.
December 2, 2009
Homework #36 Answer
For exactly ten years, it has been against the law to bungee-jump in New York State. All members of the Rubberband Club must live in New York State, and must have bungee-jumped at least once in the last two years. The Rubberband Club is currently taking applications for new members.
Which one of the following necessarily follows from the information presented above?
A. Every current member of the Rubberband Club has bungee-jumped outside of New York.
(A) is incorrect, because any current member could have bungee-jumped in New York, albeit illegally, without ever bungee-jumping anywhere else. The fact that something is against the law does not mean that it cannot and will not ever happen. The Club rule requires a member to have bungee-jumped at least once within the past two years; it does not require him to have done so legally.
The stimulus seems to set forth three specific conditions that may be important:
- when the member (current or prospective) bungee-jumped;
- where the member bungee-jumped; and
- whether he did so legally.
For a question like this, it is constructive to read the answer choice as a rule and then ask if it is possible that there is an exception. For choice (A), is it possible that there is a current member of the club who has never bungee-jumped outside of New York? The fact that every member must have bungee-jumped at least once within the last two years means that if they did so in New York, it was illegal. There could be members of the club who have only bungee-jumped in New York; whether they did so legally is outside the scope of the statement in choice (A).
B. No one currently applying for membership in the Rubberband Club has legally bungee-jumped in New York.
Is it possible that someone currently applying for membership has legally bungee-jumped in New York? Yes; (B) is incorrect because it is possible for a prospective member to have bungee-jumped legally in New York more than ten years ago, and then bungee-jumped again within the last two years, either illegally in New York or legally elsewhere.
C. The current members of the Rubberband Club have bungee-jumped illegally at least once.
Is it possible that no current member of the Club has ever bungee-jumped illegally? Yes; (C) is incorrect because they could all have done all of their recent bungee-jumping outside New York, and any of their New York bungee-jumping before it was outlawed. The club rules require the members to live in New York, not to bungee-jump there.
D. Current members of the Rubberband Club who have never bungee-jumped outside of New York have broken the law in New York.
Is it possible that any current member who has never bungee-jumped outside of New York has not broken the law in New York? No; (D) is correct. Anyone who is a current member of the Rubberband Club has to have bungee-jumped at least once in the past two years. Any member who has never bungee-jumped outside of New York has to have bungee-jumped in New York. Therefore, since they must have bungee-jumped within the past two years, and can only have done so in New York where it has been illegal throughout that time, they must have broken the law.
E. The Rubberband Club does not include any members who have bungee-jumped legally in New York.
Is it possible that there are members of the Rubberband Club who have bungee-jumped legally in New York? Yes; (E) is incorrect because the Club could include members who bungee-jumped in New York before it was outlawed, and bungee-jumped elsewhere within the past two years.
Which one of the following necessarily follows from the information presented above?
A. Every current member of the Rubberband Club has bungee-jumped outside of New York.
(A) is incorrect, because any current member could have bungee-jumped in New York, albeit illegally, without ever bungee-jumping anywhere else. The fact that something is against the law does not mean that it cannot and will not ever happen. The Club rule requires a member to have bungee-jumped at least once within the past two years; it does not require him to have done so legally.
The stimulus seems to set forth three specific conditions that may be important:
- when the member (current or prospective) bungee-jumped;
- where the member bungee-jumped; and
- whether he did so legally.
For a question like this, it is constructive to read the answer choice as a rule and then ask if it is possible that there is an exception. For choice (A), is it possible that there is a current member of the club who has never bungee-jumped outside of New York? The fact that every member must have bungee-jumped at least once within the last two years means that if they did so in New York, it was illegal. There could be members of the club who have only bungee-jumped in New York; whether they did so legally is outside the scope of the statement in choice (A).
B. No one currently applying for membership in the Rubberband Club has legally bungee-jumped in New York.
Is it possible that someone currently applying for membership has legally bungee-jumped in New York? Yes; (B) is incorrect because it is possible for a prospective member to have bungee-jumped legally in New York more than ten years ago, and then bungee-jumped again within the last two years, either illegally in New York or legally elsewhere.
C. The current members of the Rubberband Club have bungee-jumped illegally at least once.
Is it possible that no current member of the Club has ever bungee-jumped illegally? Yes; (C) is incorrect because they could all have done all of their recent bungee-jumping outside New York, and any of their New York bungee-jumping before it was outlawed. The club rules require the members to live in New York, not to bungee-jump there.
D. Current members of the Rubberband Club who have never bungee-jumped outside of New York have broken the law in New York.
Is it possible that any current member who has never bungee-jumped outside of New York has not broken the law in New York? No; (D) is correct. Anyone who is a current member of the Rubberband Club has to have bungee-jumped at least once in the past two years. Any member who has never bungee-jumped outside of New York has to have bungee-jumped in New York. Therefore, since they must have bungee-jumped within the past two years, and can only have done so in New York where it has been illegal throughout that time, they must have broken the law.
E. The Rubberband Club does not include any members who have bungee-jumped legally in New York.
Is it possible that there are members of the Rubberband Club who have bungee-jumped legally in New York? Yes; (E) is incorrect because the Club could include members who bungee-jumped in New York before it was outlawed, and bungee-jumped elsewhere within the past two years.
Homework #37
A student at any college within the CUNY system is permitted and encouraged to take classes at other CUNY schools when they complement the offerings of his home institution. For example, a student enrolled at Brooklyn College can take a class at Queens College, Hunter College, College of Staten Island, etc. Please note, however, that the final determination of credits earned and requirements satisfied remains with the student's own academic dean at his own school, even if the other school where he takes the class has a different policy. In other words, a student enrolled at Brooklyn College who takes a class at Queens College has to meet the requirements of Brooklyn College, even if Queens College's requirements are different. The rules governing a student's course of study depend solely on the institution in which he is officially enrolled, not on his physical presence in any given classroom.
The above policy statement implies that
A. any student admitted to a CUNY school will be allowed to officially enroll at another CUNY school.
B. a college may exclude a student enrolled in the CUNY system from its non-academic programs.
C. each college's Admissions Office is the sole judge of who is eligible to attend its classes.
D. students are not required to follow rules of conduct established by colleges at which they are not enrolled.
E. a student's academic dean at his own school can refuse to accept course credits for classes the student has taken at a different CUNY school.
The above policy statement implies that
A. any student admitted to a CUNY school will be allowed to officially enroll at another CUNY school.
B. a college may exclude a student enrolled in the CUNY system from its non-academic programs.
C. each college's Admissions Office is the sole judge of who is eligible to attend its classes.
D. students are not required to follow rules of conduct established by colleges at which they are not enrolled.
E. a student's academic dean at his own school can refuse to accept course credits for classes the student has taken at a different CUNY school.
December 1, 2009
Homework #35 Answer
Derek won this year's school science fair and is a star on both the school's football and basketball teams. Outside of school, he runs his own successful business and is an accomplished musician. Obviously, Derek is good at everything he does. Therefore, he will undoubtedly make an excellent Student Government President if elected.
The argument above is suspect, because it overlooks the possibility that
A. Derek participates only in those activities at which he knows he will excel.
(A) is correct. This was a difficult question; it's important to pay attention to precisely what the argument is claiming, which in this case is that Derek will make an excellent S.G. President because he is "good at everything he does." The stimulus names five specific things that Derek is "good at" (science, football, basketball, business, music) to support the claim that he is "good at everything he does." But if it is true that Derek only participates in those activities at which he knows he will excel, then he might not be "good at" anything other than the five activities specified. Therefore (A) is the best answer.
B. being Student Government President requires different skills than those needed to become an accomplished musician.
(B) is incorrect because it draws a distinction with only one of the five specified activities that Derek is "good at." If the choice had named and distinguished all five, instead of just this one, it would have been a better answer, and would have essentially implied the same thing that (A) implies, i.e., being "good at" one thing does not necessarily make someone "good at" another. But by itself, the distinction between leadership ability and musical talent is insignificant, especially when success at academics, sports and business are much better indicators of leadership potential.
C. school, sports, music and business are the only activities in which Derek is engaged.
(C) is incorrect because this possibility does not undermine the argument. (C) is different from (A) because if these are the only activities that Derek does, that nevertheless does not preclude the possibility that he might make a very good S.G. President, based on the claim that he is "good at" all of the named activities. (A) adds the element of intent, i.e., Derek only does these activities because he knows he is "good at" them, which opens up the possibility, if not the likelihood, that he would not be "good at" anything else.
D. there may be other students who are just as qualified as Derek to be Student Government President.
(D) is incorrect because it also does not undermine the argument. The fact that others may be just as qualified does not diminish Derek's qualifications. The argument makes no attempt to compare Derek to anyone else; it only claims that Derek would make an excellent S.G. President, not that he is the best choice among those available. (D) is a non-sequitur; put simply, it doesn't matter.
E. Derek has no time in his schedule to devote to Student Government.
(E) is incorrect because, like (D), it raises a separate and unrelated issue; another non-sequitur. The argument is claiming that he would make an excellent President, which is still a valid argument whether or not he would actually be willing or able to put in the time required to serve the office if he is elected.
The argument above is suspect, because it overlooks the possibility that
A. Derek participates only in those activities at which he knows he will excel.
(A) is correct. This was a difficult question; it's important to pay attention to precisely what the argument is claiming, which in this case is that Derek will make an excellent S.G. President because he is "good at everything he does." The stimulus names five specific things that Derek is "good at" (science, football, basketball, business, music) to support the claim that he is "good at everything he does." But if it is true that Derek only participates in those activities at which he knows he will excel, then he might not be "good at" anything other than the five activities specified. Therefore (A) is the best answer.
B. being Student Government President requires different skills than those needed to become an accomplished musician.
(B) is incorrect because it draws a distinction with only one of the five specified activities that Derek is "good at." If the choice had named and distinguished all five, instead of just this one, it would have been a better answer, and would have essentially implied the same thing that (A) implies, i.e., being "good at" one thing does not necessarily make someone "good at" another. But by itself, the distinction between leadership ability and musical talent is insignificant, especially when success at academics, sports and business are much better indicators of leadership potential.
C. school, sports, music and business are the only activities in which Derek is engaged.
(C) is incorrect because this possibility does not undermine the argument. (C) is different from (A) because if these are the only activities that Derek does, that nevertheless does not preclude the possibility that he might make a very good S.G. President, based on the claim that he is "good at" all of the named activities. (A) adds the element of intent, i.e., Derek only does these activities because he knows he is "good at" them, which opens up the possibility, if not the likelihood, that he would not be "good at" anything else.
D. there may be other students who are just as qualified as Derek to be Student Government President.
(D) is incorrect because it also does not undermine the argument. The fact that others may be just as qualified does not diminish Derek's qualifications. The argument makes no attempt to compare Derek to anyone else; it only claims that Derek would make an excellent S.G. President, not that he is the best choice among those available. (D) is a non-sequitur; put simply, it doesn't matter.
E. Derek has no time in his schedule to devote to Student Government.
(E) is incorrect because, like (D), it raises a separate and unrelated issue; another non-sequitur. The argument is claiming that he would make an excellent President, which is still a valid argument whether or not he would actually be willing or able to put in the time required to serve the office if he is elected.
Homework #36
For exactly ten years, it has been against the law to bungee-jump in New York State. All members of the Rubberband Club must live in New York State, and must have bungee-jumped at least once in the last two years. The Rubberband Club is currently taking applications for new members.
Which one of the following necessarily follows from the information presented above?
A. Every current member of the Rubberband Club has bungee-jumped outside of New York.
B. No one currently applying for membership in the Rubberband Club has legally bungee-jumped in New York.
C. The current members of the Rubberband Club have bungee-jumped illegally at least once.
D. Current members of the Rubberband Club who have never bungee-jumped outside of New York have broken the law in New York.
E. The Rubberband Club does not include any members who have bungee-jumped legally in New York.
Which one of the following necessarily follows from the information presented above?
A. Every current member of the Rubberband Club has bungee-jumped outside of New York.
B. No one currently applying for membership in the Rubberband Club has legally bungee-jumped in New York.
C. The current members of the Rubberband Club have bungee-jumped illegally at least once.
D. Current members of the Rubberband Club who have never bungee-jumped outside of New York have broken the law in New York.
E. The Rubberband Club does not include any members who have bungee-jumped legally in New York.
Homework #34 Answer
Until 1990, the results of the Reading Level Assessment Test (RLAT) given in middle schools of Brooklyn and Queens indicated that the reading ability of students in the two boroughs was nearly identical. Since 1990, however, the average score on the test has been markedly higher in Brooklyn than in Queens. The Superintendent of the Brooklyn schools believes that his students did better on the test because all Brooklyn middle schools reinstated minimum reading level requirements. Under these requirements, all students in Brooklyn reading below grade level are required to attend after-school reading workshops once a week.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?
A. The average score on the RLAT in Brooklyn has increased the minimum reading level requirement.
(A) is incorrect because it states the inverse of the argument, essentially saying that the effect leads to the cause, which is not logical. The argument is that the reinstatement of the minimum reading level requirement (i.e., higher standards) in Brooklyn led to higher RLAT scores in that borough. Generally, where a result is attributable to a specific cause, it does not follow that the cause is attributable to the result. A causes B; B does not cause A.
B. There was a minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point before 1990.
(B) is incorrect because there is not enough information in the stimulus by which we could make any firm statements about what was happening in Queens, either before or after 1990. It is important to remember that the argument, attributing the rise in test scores in Brooklyn to higher standards in Brooklyn, is something the Brooklyn Superintendent believes. If he is wrong, and the result is attributable to something else, then the other facts in the stimulus tell us nothing about what's been happening in Queens. Even if he is right, this would not be a logical inference; the standards were reinstated in Brooklyn, which means they existed at one point and then were eliminated before being put back into place, but we don't know whether they ever existed in Queens. The fact that the Queens scores tracked the Brooklyn scores before Brooklyn reinstated the standards suggests they probably didn't, but again, we don't know enough to say for sure.
C. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Brooklyn middle schools at some point before 1990.
(C) is correct. The Brooklyn Superintendent believes that test scores have risen since 1990 because the minimum reading level requirements were reinstated. That means they were in place at some point, then were eliminated at some later point before being put back into place. If the scores have risen since 1990, and the Superintendent attributes that rise to the reinstatement of the standards, then it must be true that at some point before 1990, there were no such standards in place. Otherwise the rise in scores since 1990 cannot reasonably be attributed to the reinstatement of the standards.
D. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point after 1990.
(D) is incorrect for the same reason as (B). Because the stimulus characterizes the argument as something the Brooklyn Superintendent believes, the possibility that he is wrong eliminates choice (D) as a logical inference. It could be true, but it doesn't have to be true. Again, if the Superintendent is wrong, if the rise in scores is actually attributable to something other than the reinstatement of the standards, then the remaining facts in the stimulus allow no inferences to be drawn about anything happening in Queens. Had the stimulus made the argument directly, then this might have been a logical inference. If the Superintendent is right, then this is probably true. But it didn't, and we don't know.
E. Since 1990, the RLAT score of every student in Brooklyn has been higher than the RLAT score of every student in Queens.
(E) is incorrect because it's ridiculous. Just because the average score of one group is higher than the other doesn't mean that every member of the first group scored higher than every member of the second. You can receive a higher grade than another student on one notebook check and still end up with a lower overall average than that person.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?
A. The average score on the RLAT in Brooklyn has increased the minimum reading level requirement.
(A) is incorrect because it states the inverse of the argument, essentially saying that the effect leads to the cause, which is not logical. The argument is that the reinstatement of the minimum reading level requirement (i.e., higher standards) in Brooklyn led to higher RLAT scores in that borough. Generally, where a result is attributable to a specific cause, it does not follow that the cause is attributable to the result. A causes B; B does not cause A.
B. There was a minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point before 1990.
(B) is incorrect because there is not enough information in the stimulus by which we could make any firm statements about what was happening in Queens, either before or after 1990. It is important to remember that the argument, attributing the rise in test scores in Brooklyn to higher standards in Brooklyn, is something the Brooklyn Superintendent believes. If he is wrong, and the result is attributable to something else, then the other facts in the stimulus tell us nothing about what's been happening in Queens. Even if he is right, this would not be a logical inference; the standards were reinstated in Brooklyn, which means they existed at one point and then were eliminated before being put back into place, but we don't know whether they ever existed in Queens. The fact that the Queens scores tracked the Brooklyn scores before Brooklyn reinstated the standards suggests they probably didn't, but again, we don't know enough to say for sure.
C. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Brooklyn middle schools at some point before 1990.
(C) is correct. The Brooklyn Superintendent believes that test scores have risen since 1990 because the minimum reading level requirements were reinstated. That means they were in place at some point, then were eliminated at some later point before being put back into place. If the scores have risen since 1990, and the Superintendent attributes that rise to the reinstatement of the standards, then it must be true that at some point before 1990, there were no such standards in place. Otherwise the rise in scores since 1990 cannot reasonably be attributed to the reinstatement of the standards.
D. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point after 1990.
(D) is incorrect for the same reason as (B). Because the stimulus characterizes the argument as something the Brooklyn Superintendent believes, the possibility that he is wrong eliminates choice (D) as a logical inference. It could be true, but it doesn't have to be true. Again, if the Superintendent is wrong, if the rise in scores is actually attributable to something other than the reinstatement of the standards, then the remaining facts in the stimulus allow no inferences to be drawn about anything happening in Queens. Had the stimulus made the argument directly, then this might have been a logical inference. If the Superintendent is right, then this is probably true. But it didn't, and we don't know.
E. Since 1990, the RLAT score of every student in Brooklyn has been higher than the RLAT score of every student in Queens.
(E) is incorrect because it's ridiculous. Just because the average score of one group is higher than the other doesn't mean that every member of the first group scored higher than every member of the second. You can receive a higher grade than another student on one notebook check and still end up with a lower overall average than that person.
November 30, 2009
Homework #35
Derek won this year's school science fair and is a star on both the school's football and basketball teams. Outside of school, he runs his own successful business and is an accomplished musician. Obviously, Derek is good at everything he does. Therefore, he will undoubtedly make an excellent Student Government President if elected.
The argument above is suspect, because it overlooks the possibility that
A. Derek participates only in those activities at which he knows he will excel.
B. being Student Government President requires different skills than those needed to become an accomplished musician.
C. school, sports, music and business are the only activities in which Derek is engaged.
D. there may be other students who are just as qualified as Derek to be Student Government President.
E. Derek has no time in his schedule to devote to Student Government.
The argument above is suspect, because it overlooks the possibility that
A. Derek participates only in those activities at which he knows he will excel.
B. being Student Government President requires different skills than those needed to become an accomplished musician.
C. school, sports, music and business are the only activities in which Derek is engaged.
D. there may be other students who are just as qualified as Derek to be Student Government President.
E. Derek has no time in his schedule to devote to Student Government.
November 24, 2009
Homework #33 Answer
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument in Homework #32?
A. Most people who use slang expressions in conversation understand what they mean.
(A) is incorrect because it does not weaken the argument so much as offer a possible reason why the author's point may not matter to the speaker even if it is valid. It's a non sequitur, really. The author's argument is that the use of slang expressions degrades the language, i.e., reduces its overall quality. The example he cites, which "translates" the slang into English, suggests an acknowledgment on his part that people typically know what slang expressions mean. The author is therefore concerned with the quality of the language, not with the ability of those who speak it to understand each other in conversation. Even if it's true that people can communicate using slang expressions, it is no less arguable that such expressions degrade and devalue the language. Therefore (A) is not as good an answer as (E).
B. Many slang expressions that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time, as the people who used them were assimilated into larger groups that used different expressions.
(B) is incorrect because it does not undermine the argument in any way. Whether any particular slang expressions endure or not, or whether slang expressions in general tend to pass in and out of usage, they still have the capacity to degrade the language, as the author suggests.
C. Whether a new word or phrase is widely used in the media and entertainment is an important factor in whether the word or phrase will become common slang.
(C) is incorrect because the author is not concerned with where slang expressions come from, or in what venues they tend to be used. Regardless of where they originate or how they are disseminated, they still have the capacity to degrade the language.
D. Slang expressions are more likely to be invented by children and adolescents than by any other segment of the population.
(D) is incorrect for the same reason as (C). Indeed, if it is true that children and adolescents tend to invent slang terms, that makes the author's argument even stronger, since those young people will not grow up with an adequate knowledge of or appreciation for the English language and thereby degrade it even further.
E. Languages of the highest quality often evolve over time out of a collection of slang expressions woven into the formal dialect of a given people.
(E) is correct. Unlike (A), which is a non sequitur, (E) directly addresses the author's argument that slang usage degrades the English language by suggesting that such expressions actually increase the quality of the language over the long term. The author argues that slang expressions make the language less formal and less precise, whereas (E) states that such expressions eventually develop into formal speech and result in high-quality languages. Therefore (E) is the best answer.
A. Most people who use slang expressions in conversation understand what they mean.
(A) is incorrect because it does not weaken the argument so much as offer a possible reason why the author's point may not matter to the speaker even if it is valid. It's a non sequitur, really. The author's argument is that the use of slang expressions degrades the language, i.e., reduces its overall quality. The example he cites, which "translates" the slang into English, suggests an acknowledgment on his part that people typically know what slang expressions mean. The author is therefore concerned with the quality of the language, not with the ability of those who speak it to understand each other in conversation. Even if it's true that people can communicate using slang expressions, it is no less arguable that such expressions degrade and devalue the language. Therefore (A) is not as good an answer as (E).
B. Many slang expressions that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time, as the people who used them were assimilated into larger groups that used different expressions.
(B) is incorrect because it does not undermine the argument in any way. Whether any particular slang expressions endure or not, or whether slang expressions in general tend to pass in and out of usage, they still have the capacity to degrade the language, as the author suggests.
C. Whether a new word or phrase is widely used in the media and entertainment is an important factor in whether the word or phrase will become common slang.
(C) is incorrect because the author is not concerned with where slang expressions come from, or in what venues they tend to be used. Regardless of where they originate or how they are disseminated, they still have the capacity to degrade the language.
D. Slang expressions are more likely to be invented by children and adolescents than by any other segment of the population.
(D) is incorrect for the same reason as (C). Indeed, if it is true that children and adolescents tend to invent slang terms, that makes the author's argument even stronger, since those young people will not grow up with an adequate knowledge of or appreciation for the English language and thereby degrade it even further.
E. Languages of the highest quality often evolve over time out of a collection of slang expressions woven into the formal dialect of a given people.
(E) is correct. Unlike (A), which is a non sequitur, (E) directly addresses the author's argument that slang usage degrades the English language by suggesting that such expressions actually increase the quality of the language over the long term. The author argues that slang expressions make the language less formal and less precise, whereas (E) states that such expressions eventually develop into formal speech and result in high-quality languages. Therefore (E) is the best answer.
Homework #34
Until 1990, the results of the Reading Level Assessment Test (RLAT) given in middle schools of Brooklyn and Queens indicated that the reading ability of students in the two boroughs was nearly identical. Since 1990, however, the average score on the test has been markedly higher in Brooklyn than in Queens. The Superintendent of the Brooklyn schools believes that his students did better on the test because all Brooklyn middle schools reinstated minimum reading level requirements. Under these requirements, all students in Brooklyn reading below grade level are required to attend after-school reading workshops once a week.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?
A. The average score on the RLAT in Brooklyn has increased the minimum reading level requirement.
B. There was a minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point before 1990.
C. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Brooklyn middle schools at some point before 1990.
D. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point after 1990.
E. Since 1990, the RLAT score of every student in Brooklyn has been higher than the RLAT score of every student in Queens.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?
A. The average score on the RLAT in Brooklyn has increased the minimum reading level requirement.
B. There was a minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point before 1990.
C. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Brooklyn middle schools at some point before 1990.
D. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point after 1990.
E. Since 1990, the RLAT score of every student in Brooklyn has been higher than the RLAT score of every student in Queens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)