Lists of hospitals have been compiled showing which hospitals have patient death rates exceeding the national average. The data have been adjusted to allow for differences in the ages of patients. Each of the following, if true, provides a good logical ground for hospitals to object to interpreting rank on these lists as one of the indices of the quality of hospital care EXCEPT: (A) Rank order might indicate insignificant differences, rather than large differences, in numbers of patient deaths.----provides ground for objection. (B) Hospitals that keep patients longer are likely to have higher death rates than those that discharge patients earlier but do not record deaths of patients at home after discharge.-----shows reasons making ranks insignificant. (C) Patients who are very old on admission to a hospital are less likely than younger patients to survive the same types of illnesses or surgical procedures. (D) Some hospitals serve a larger proportion of low-income patients, who tend to be more seriously ill when admitted to a hospital.----projects reasons for services provided by hospitals. (E) For-profit hospitals sometimes do not provide intensive-care units and other expensive services for very sick patients but refer or transfer such patients to other hospitals.-------explains why some hospitals not to be considered merely on rank. The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment. When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be. Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated? (A) The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are.------already stated in question. (B) The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.-----irrelevant. (C) If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.----nothing mentioned related to denying. (D) The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known----no withdrawl factors considered in question. (E) If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.
Aap agree hongey to answer voich honge.... OA are CA As i said i wanna get correct understanding( Pl. post your expln. for CR1) Phirozz bhai CRs from your end are welcome
Twosome doze for the day
Lists of hospitals have been compiled showing which hospitals have patient death rates exceeding the national average. The data have been adjusted to allow for differences in the ages of patients. Each of the following, if true, provides a good logical ground for hospitals to object to interpreting rank on these lists as one of the indices of the quality of hospital care EXCEPT: (A) Rank order might indicate insignificant differences, rather than large differences, in numbers of patient deaths.----- directly objects rank order sys. (B) Hospitals that keep patients longer are likely to have higher death rates than those that discharge patients earlier but do not record deaths of patients at home after discharge.----- objects rank order sys. and no where age diff. mentioned (C) Patients who are very old on admission to a hospital are less likely than younger patients to survive the same types of illnesses or surgical procedures.---------because young and old i.e the age difference and same kind of illness are compared it clearly indicates this as the answer (D) Some hospitals serve a larger proportion of low-income patients, who tend to be more seriously ill when admitted to a hospital----- certifies the reason of high rate of death by saying large proportion low income patients (E) For-profit hospitals sometimes do not provide intensive-care units and other expensive services for very sick patients but refer or transfer such patients to other hospitals.------- objects the functioning of rank order sys. The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment. When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be. Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated? (A) The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are---oppose to what is said in the psg. (B) The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.---- this is the answer since nobody is aware who are the other nominees are (C) If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.---- cannot be inferred. (D) The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known---- since nobody knows who r the other nominees are it cannot be inferred (E) If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee------ cannot be inferred
Myanswers 1- C 2- B. whats the OA ? I have given my explanation only for 2nd one.. felt 1st one easy. @hungrymind26 i had given my solution for 1st Cr of ur previous questions in my previous post.
OA are C and E Congo Bishoo!! ,, Phirozz u and me ,,, :-( Neverthless we have tried to justify....
But phirozz in 2nd CR u and bishoo agree for {A} is wrong ok... can u elaborate, because in psg. it is written that for each to be selected as a new nominee they are to be selected from the consent of ones who are already a nominee.... So I marked (A) but if (A) is not the option then directly (E) is the option because it is exactly opposite of (A)... Isn't it?
You said "it is written that for each to be selected as a new nominee they are to be selected from the consent of ones who are already a nominee..." but that's not true - let me draw your attention to the exact wording of the relevant statement:
When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be. Not "those who are already a nominee" but should be told who else is or is not going to be a nominee"
So for example, imagine A, B, C, D, E etc are possible people who might be nominees. Now A hates C and D and will not take the risk of losing the election to either of them and so will not stand against them. Similarly C hates A and D with equal fervour, and (not surprisingly) D hates A and C too! But none of them knows whether the other is going to stand or not as of now. Now look at what happens....
Suppose I approach A to ask him if he is going to stand, he will agree only if he knows that C and D won't. And according to the rules before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be. But the standing or not standing of C and D is itself dependent on A's standing (or otherwise) and hence it is a paradox and an impossibilty and hence (E)
You could technically argue that the issue could be resolved by asking all of them simultaneously - but even so, a paradox could be contrived with a little care. Suppose there are two potential candidates A and B, but the catch is that A is willing to stand if and only if B stands, while B is willing to stand if and only if A doesnot stand. Then how can one get a solution?
(Looking back at the above, I suspect I might not have been very clear. I know what I am trying to say but I suspect am putting it in a convoluted manner - hope it makes sense!)
You said "it is written that for each to be selected as a new nominee they are to be selected from the consent of ones who are already a nominee..." but that's not true - let me draw your attention to the exact wording of the relevant statement:
When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.
Not "those who are already a nominee" but should be told who else is or is not going to be a nominee"
So for example, imagine A, B, C, D, E etc are possible people who might be nominees. Now A hates C and D and will not take the risk of losing the election to either of them and so will not stand against them. Similarly C hates A and D with equal fervour, and (not surprisingly) D hates A and C too! But none of them knows whether the other is going to stand or not as of now. Now look at what happens....
Suppose I approach A to ask him if he is going to stand, he will agree only if he knows that C and D won't. And according to the rules before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be. But the standing or not standing of C and D is itself dependent on A's standing (or otherwise) and hence it is a paradox and an impossibilty and hence (E)
You could technically argue that the issue could be resolved by asking all of them simultaneously - but even so, a paradox could be contrived with a little care. Suppose there are two potential candidates A and B, but the catch is that A is willing to stand if and only if B stands, while B is willing to stand if and only if A doesnot stand. Then how can one get a solution?
(Looking back at the above, I suspect I might not have been very clear. I know what I am trying to say but I suspect am putting it in a convoluted manner - hope it makes sense!)
~lakesidey
ok i got that!!! Gud expln.... Phirozz,Bishoo in case of any confusion you must refer to scrabbler's post... a very laconic one and logical enough..
Partly because of bad weather , but also partly because some major pepper growers have switched to high-priced cocoa, world production of pepper has been running well below worldwide sales for three years. Pepper is consequently in relatively short supply. The price of pepper has soared in response: it now equals that of cocoa. Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by some growers from pepper to coca left those growers no better off than if none of them had switched; this conclusion, however , is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that A. those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go B. the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial C. supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had no switched crops D. cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops E. as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously Answers plz??
Partly because of bad weather , but also partly because some major pepper growers have switched to high-priced cocoa, world production of pepper has been running well below worldwide sales for three years. Pepper is consequently in relatively short supply. The price of pepper has soared in response: it now equals that of cocoa. Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by some growers from pepper to coca left those growers no better off than if none of them had switched; this conclusion, however , is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that A. those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go B. the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial C. supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had no switched crops D. cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops E. as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously Answers plz??
some problem with my indentation.. trying now hope its readable Partly because of bad weather , but also partly because some major pepper growers have switched to high-priced cocoa, world production of pepper has been running well below worldwide sales for three years. Pepper is consequently in relatively short supply. The price of pepper has soared in response: it now equals that of cocoa. Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by some growers from pepper to coca left those growers no better off than if none of them had switched; this conclusion, however , is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that A. those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go B. the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial C. supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had no switched crops D. cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops E. as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously Answers plz??
Partly because of bad weather , but also partly because some major pepper growers have switched to high-priced cocoa, world production of pepper has been running well below worldwide sales for three years. Pepper is consequently in relatively short supply. The price of pepper has soared in response: it now equals that of cocoa. Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by some growers from pepper to coca left those growers no better off than if none of them had switched; this conclusion, however , is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that
Answer C-- Rise in price of pepper is because of major pepper growers's shift to cocoa production and bad weather.Cocoa is already a high priced crop whereas rise in prices of pepper is situational.If few major pepper growers had not switched to cocoa , pepper price would have been lower than cocoa and supplies wouldn't be low. In short unwarranting the conclusion that growing pepper is more beneficial than shiftin to cocoa!!!!
A. those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go
B. the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial
C. supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had no switched crops
D. cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops
E. as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously
Partly because of bad weather , but also partly because some major pepper growers have switched to high-priced cocoa, world production of pepper has been running well below worldwide sales for three years. Pepper is consequently in relatively short supply. The price of pepper has soared in response: it now equals that of cocoa. Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by some growers from pepper to coca left those growers no better off than if none of them had switched; this conclusion, however , is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that
A. those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go
B. the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial
C. supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had no switched crops
D. cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops
E. as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously Answers plz??
We have to look for an option which weakens the conclusion B, D and E are out of scope. A cannot be the answer because its contradicting itself. Its saying they could not have forseen such an rise in price, however price rose due to their shifting because supply came down. C is the answer, its against the observer's conclusion by saying that pepper price rose due to the switch of crops.
some problem with my indentation.. trying now hope its readable Partly because of bad weather , but also partly because some major pepper growers have switched to high-priced cocoa, world production of pepper has been running well below worldwide sales for three years. Pepper is consequently in relatively short supply. The price of pepper has soared in response: it now equals that of cocoa. Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by some growers from pepper to coca left those growers no better off than if none of them had switched; this conclusion, however , is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that A. those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go B. the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial C. supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had no switched crops D. cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops E. as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously Answers plz??
1) Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. This category, however, will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share. If the estimates above are accurate, which of the following conclusions can be drawn? (A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations. (B) In 1995 more people will be working in high-paying service occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations. (C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982. (D) Many of the people who were working in low-paying service occupations in 1982 will be working in high-paying service occupations by 1995. (E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995
for 1st CR , hint:- a bit of calc. may be required, it would be much easier then.. I won't disclose my answer ... 2) Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply. Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice. Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Rogers charge that her argument is illogical? (A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.------ bold part makes this as the answer as her argument supports taxation for all with or without use of govt. services. It's an analogy. (B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools------ its not about capability of bearing the burden , also to refute Roger's charge "law" term is necessary . (C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.--- this says that if credits are granted no dual tax burden is necessary which opposes her argument (D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.----no taxation mentioned (E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.---its not about unfairness. 3) The price the government pays for standard weapons purchased from military contractors is determined by a pricing method called historical costing. Historical costing allows contractors to protect their profits by adding a percentage increase, based on the current rate of inflation, to the previous years contractual price. Which of the following statements, if true, is the best basis for a criticism of historical costing as an economically sound pricing method for military contracts? (A) The government might continue to pay for past inefficient use of funds.---- from the govt. point of view this is the answer,here a consistently flawed model from the very past has compelled govt. to economic failure of the model. (B) The rate of inflation has varied considerably over the past twenty years.--- model is revised yearly so not much impact (C) The contractual price will be greatly affected by the cost of materials used for the products.---- from contractor's view this is the answer, here the aspect of economic loss from contractor's profit point of view is mentioned and because these costs will not be included model gets flawed. (D) Many taxpayers question the amount of money the government spends on military contracts.---irrelevant (E) The pricing method based on historical costing might not encourage the development of innovative weapons.---irrelevant PS:- I know its odd to mark two answers but I feel due to lack of clarity I mark A and C as my answers for this CR. However I 'm more inclined to A as govt. makes economic loss by this model ultimately
1. Canadians now increasingly engage in out-shopping, which is shopping across the national border, where prices are lower. Prices are lower outside of Canada in large part because the goods-and-services tax that pays for Canadian social services is not applied. Which one of the following is best supported on the basis of the information above? (A) If the upward trend in out-shopping continues at a significant level and the amounts paid by the government for Canadian social services are maintained, the Canadian goods-and-services tax will be assessed at a higher rate. (B) If Canada imposes a substantial tariff on the goods bought across the border, a reciprocal tariff on cross-border shopping in the other direction will be imposed, thereby harming Canadian businesses. (C) The amounts the Canadian government pays out to those who provide social services to Canadians are increasing. (D) The same brands of goods are available to Canadian shoppers across the border as are available in Canada. (E) Out-shopping purchases are subject to Canadian taxes when the purchaser crosses the border to bring them into Canada.
1. Canadians now increasingly engage in "out-shopping," which is shopping across the national border, where prices are lower. Prices are lower outside of Canada in large part because the goods-and-services tax that pays for Canadian social services is not applied. Which one of the following is best supported on the basis of the information above? (A) If the upward trend in out-shopping continues at a significant level and the amounts paid by the government for Canadian social services are maintained, the Canadian goods-and-services tax will be assessed at a higher rate.-----if out-shopping continues, taxes will never increase. (B) If Canada imposes a substantial tariff on the goods bought across the border, a reciprocal tariff on cross-border shopping in the other direction will be imposed, thereby harming Canadian businesses. (C) The amounts the Canadian government pays out to those who provide social services to Canadians are increasing.-----it can't be concluded whether increasing of decreasing. (D) The same brands of goods are available to Canadian shoppers across the border as are available in Canada. (E) Out-shopping purchases are subject to Canadian taxes when the purchaser crosses the border to bring them into Canada.-----had there been any taxes, out-shopping would have been avoided.
Both (B) & (D) looks to happen. But B looks better than D....
Hmmm.. The question says which one of the following is best supported on the basis of the information above? Now we cant assume what Canada will do... Hence, not the correct answer...
bishoo123 Says
Both (B) & (D) looks to happen. But B looks better than D....
1. Canadians now increasingly engage in out-shopping, which is shopping across the national border, where prices are lower. Prices are lower outside of Canada in large part because the goods-and-services tax that pays for Canadian social services is not applied. Which one of the following is best supported on the basis of the information above? (A) If the upward trend in out-shopping continues at a significant level and the amounts paid by the government for Canadian social services are maintained, the Canadian goods-and-services tax will be assessed at a higher rate. If the upward trend continues, then more and more goods will be purchased from outside - which means less goods bought in Canada, which mean less tax earned if the rate remains same. So if the total amounts paid by the government for Canadian social services are to be maintained, the Canadian goods-and-services tax will have to be assessed at a higher rate so that the bill can be met even if fewer goods are purchased!
(B) If Canada imposes a substantial tariff on the goods bought across the border, a reciprocal tariff on cross-border shopping in the other direction will be imposed, thereby harming Canadian businesses. This cannot be concluded from the given info. It may happen, but that is our guess from our knowledge in general, not this paragraph. (C) The amounts the Canadian government pays out to those who provide social services to Canadians are increasing. This again cannot be concluded. In fact, maybe the reverse, since less people are paying the tax and hence less money is available! (D) The same brands of goods are available to Canadian shoppers across the border as are available in Canada. This is totally irrelevant to the discussion I feel, we don't even know if branded goods are being discussed.
(E) Out-shopping purchases are subject to Canadian taxes when the purchaser crosses the border to bring them into Canada. This is contrary to given info, as then there would be no price differential and so no point in out-shopping!
Bang on, OA is A indeed!!! i really like this q...
1. Canadians now increasingly engage in out-shopping, which is shopping across the national border, where prices are lower. Prices are lower outside of Canada in large part because the goods-and-services tax that pays for Canadian social services is not applied. Which one of the following is best supported on the basis of the information above? (A) If the upward trend in out-shopping continues at a significant level and the amounts paid by the government for Canadian social services are maintained, the Canadian goods-and-services tax will be assessed at a higher rate. If the upward trend continues, then more and more goods will be purchased from outside - which means less goods bought in Canada, which mean less tax earned if the rate remains same. So if the total amounts paid by the government for Canadian social services are to be maintained, the Canadian goods-and-services tax will have to be assessed at a higher rate so that the bill can be met even if fewer goods are purchased! (B) If Canada imposes a substantial tariff on the goods bought across the border, a reciprocal tariff on cross-border shopping in the other direction will be imposed, thereby harming Canadian businesses. This cannot be concluded from the given info. It may happen, but that is our guess from our knowledge in general, not this paragraph. (C) The amounts the Canadian government pays out to those who provide social services to Canadians are increasing. This again cannot be concluded. In fact, maybe the reverse, since less people are paying the tax and hence less money is available! (D) The same brands of goods are available to Canadian shoppers across the border as are available in Canada. This is totally irrelevant to the discussion I feel, we don't even know if branded goods are being discussed. (E) Out-shopping purchases are subject to Canadian taxes when the purchaser crosses the border to bring them into Canada. This is contrary to given info, as then there would be no price differential and so no point in out-shopping!
1. Canadians now increasingly engage in "out-shopping," which is shopping across the national border, where prices are lower. Prices are lower outside of Canada in large part because the goods-and-services tax that pays for Canadian social services is not applied. Which one of the following is best supported on the basis of the information above? (A) If the upward trend in out-shopping continues at a significant level and the amounts paid by the government for Canadian social services are maintained, the Canadian goods-and-services tax will be assessed at a higher rate.------------this is the answer because because to compensate against evasion of GST Canadian govt. will increase GST rate thereby meeting its demand of social service (B) If Canada imposes a substantial tariff on the goods bought across the border, a reciprocal tariff on cross-border shopping in the other direction will be imposed, thereby harming Canadian businesses.------this is not a valid conclusion as Canadians are out shopping only because of lower prices, if they have to pay more for the same, they better would shop in Canada (C) The amounts the Canadian government pays out to those who provide social services to Canadians are increasing.-----social services are provided by Canada govt. from the collection of GST.So this is not possible (D) The same brands of goods are available to Canadian shoppers across the border as are available in Canada.-----this is one necessary premise to be stated but it doesn't support the psg. (E) Out-shopping purchases are subject to Canadian taxes when the purchaser crosses the border to bring them into Canada.----this will definitely hamper the business Puys ( Phirzz , Bishoo , Scrabbler ,...) Threesome doze what about answers to my CRs ? Plz. do answer them I am going to post the OA today evening
Heres one more During the Second world war, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members if the United states armed forces died overseas. On the basis of those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the second world war than to stay at home as a civilian. Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?? A. Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United states in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas. B. Expressing the difference between numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths. C. Separating death caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries. D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths E. Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces.
