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.----- not precise
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----not precise
C. Separating death caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries----- irrelevant
D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths --- more accurate distinction made as deaths per thousand may give you precise idea number wise
E. Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces. ----irrelevant
Easy one!! What's the OA
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.----this will give a clear picture of deaths in US and 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.-----slight modified comparison than given in question.
C. Separating death caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries.----doesn't separate figures in US to overseas.
D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths.-----may be ( in per thousand figures ) civillians is more in US & armed forces is less, so can't be concluded.
E. Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces.-----this will show ( civillian + armed forces ) in US Vs (armed forces overseas ).
awaiting for OA.
OA is 'D'. It asks to make the conclusion valid. Even I got wrong, initially thought expressing a a percentage cud work.
nilesh376 SaysOA is 'D'. It asks to make the conclusion valid. Even I got wrong, initially thought expressing a a percentage cud work.
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??
D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths.
Even if we get the number per thousand for each group, is there a way to justify which place is safe to live in, ie. US or Overseas.
Since the number per thousand for both civilians and armed forces will include the number of deaths in US & Overseas, how can it be justified which place is safer ?
Suppose, for civilians => 300 per thousand (US) & 200 per thousand ( Overseas)
armed forces => 100 per thousand(US) & 400 per thousand ( Overseas).
Now, what to conclude.
Since these figures include both the places in totality, how can a demarcation be figured out ?
the answer is D.
as others are either irrevelant or are conclusions.
they are not the assumptions.
The answer is D as other options are either irrelevant or conclusions
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??
D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths.
Even if we get the number per thousand for each group, is there a way to justify which place is safe to live in, ie. US or Overseas.
Since the number per thousand for both civilians and armed forces will include the number of deaths in US & Overseas, how can it be justified which place is safer ?
Suppose, for civilians => 300 per thousand (US) & 200 per thousand ( Overseas)
armed forces => 100 per thousand(US) & 400 per thousand ( Overseas).
Now, what to conclude.
Since these figures include both the places in totality, how can a demarcation be figured out ?
The statement I've highlighted above in bold is inaccurate. The option says
D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths.
The two "groups" here are 'civilians who died in the United States' and 'members of the United states armed forces who died overseas' andthe conclusion too compares these two groups. So if know that in the first group 375,000 out of say 500 million people died, while in the second group, 408000 out of 500000 died, then would it not prove the conclusion absurd?
Let me also provide another example of flawed reasoning parallel to the above:
In 2020 the census recorded 900 Billionaires (in USD terms) in India. The same census recorded 600 Billionaires in Japan. On the basis of these figures, it can be concluded that Indians are more likely to become Billionaires than Japanese are.
You see the problem? The base population is important, since when you make a "more likely" kind of statement, you are descending into probability and there the Sample Space size is very important.
~lakesidey
The statement I've highlighted above in bold is inaccurate. The option says
D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths.
The two "groups" here are 'civilians who died in the United States' and 'members of the United states armed forces who died overseas' andthe conclusion too compares these two groups. So if know that in the first group 375,000 out of say 500 million people died, while in the second group, 408000 out of 500000 died, then would it not prove the conclusion absurd?
Let me also provide another example of flawed reasoning parallel to the above:
In 2020 the census recorded 900 Billionaires (in USD terms) in India. The same census recorded 600 Billionaires in Japan. On the basis of these figures, it can be concluded that Indians are more likely to become Billionaires than Japanese are.
You see the problem? The base population is important, since when you make a "more likely" kind of statement, you are descending into probability and there the Sample Space size is very important.
~lakesidey
Yep, I mistook the two groups as only " civilians" and "armed forces" & hence the confusion.Thanks for clearing out.
OA for my previous CR post "AAA" ---
No expln , no justification , no other choices!!!
Only doubt is last CR ? can smne justify,,,,
OA for my previous CR post "AAA" ---
No expln , no justification , no other choices!!!
Only doubt is last CR ? can smne justify,,,,
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.Can you explain me buddy, what this means here :- "past inefficient use of funds"
bishoo123 SaysThe 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.Can you explain me buddy, what this means here :- "past inefficient use of funds"
iam confused between A & C however i have posted my justification in my post u can refer that,,, hope that helps!!!
One More The tobacco industry is still profitable and projections are that it will remain so. In the United States this year, the total amount of tobacco sold by tobacco-farmers has increased, even though the number of adults who smoke has decreased. Each of the following ,if true could explain the simultaneous increase in tobacco sales and decrease in the number of adults who smoke EXCEPT A. During this year, the number of women who have begun to smoke is greater than the number of men who have quit smoking. B. The number of teen-age children who have begun to smoke this year is greater than the number of adults who have quit smoking during the same period. C. During this year, the number of nonsmokers who have begun to use chewing tobacco or snuff is greater than the number of people who have quit smoking. D. The people who have continued to smoke consume more tobacco per person than they did in the past. E. More of the cigrattes made in United States this year were exported to other countries than was the case last year.
nilesh376 SaysOne More The tobacco industry is still profitable and projections are that it will remain so. In the United States this year, the total amount of tobacco sold by tobacco-farmers has increased, even though the number of adults who smoke has decreased. Each of the following ,if true could explain the simultaneous increase in tobacco sales and decrease in the number of adults who smoke EXCEPT A. During this year, the number of women who have begun to smoke is greater than the number of men who have quit smoking. B. The number of teen-age children who have begun to smoke this year is greater than the number of adults who have quit smoking during the same period. C. During this year, the number of nonsmokers who have begun to use chewing tobacco or snuff is greater than the number of people who have quit smoking. D. The people who have continued to smoke consume more tobacco per person than they did in the past. E. More of the cigrattes made in United States this year were exported to other countries than was the case last year.
I would go with (A)
~lakesidey
nilesh376 SaysOne More The tobacco industry is still profitable and projections are that it will remain so. In the United States this year, the total amount of tobacco sold by tobacco-farmers has increased, even though the number of adults who smoke has decreased. Each of the following ,if true could explain the simultaneous increase in tobacco sales and decrease in the number of adults who smoke EXCEPT A. During this year, the number of women who have begun to smoke is greater than the number of men who have quit smoking. B. The number of teen-age children who have begun to smoke this year is greater than the number of adults who have quit smoking during the same period. C. During this year, the number of nonsmokers who have begun to use chewing tobacco or snuff is greater than the number of people who have quit smoking. D. The people who have continued to smoke consume more tobacco per person than they did in the past. E. More of the cigrattes made in United States this year were exported to other countries than was the case last year.
A is the answer.. quite easy
nilesh376 SaysOne More The tobacco industry is still profitable and projections are that it will remain so. In the United States this year, the total amount of tobacco sold by tobacco-farmers has increased, even though the number of adults who smoke has decreased. Each of the following ,if true could explain the simultaneous increase in tobacco sales and decrease in the number of adults who smoke EXCEPT A. During this year, the number of women who have begun to smoke is greater than the number of men who have quit smoking. B. The number of teen-age children who have begun to smoke this year is greater than the number of adults who have quit smoking during the same period. C. During this year, the number of nonsmokers who have begun to use chewing tobacco or snuff is greater than the number of people who have quit smoking. D. The people who have continued to smoke consume more tobacco per person than they did in the past. E. More of the cigrattes made in United States this year were exported to other countries than was the case last year.
OA 'A' Cant seem to understand why its not between D or E.. B and C are out due to obvious reason Option D the tobacco sales have increased but number of adults remained same. not decreased E again shows increased sales in tobbaco but doesnt say anything about decrease in adult who smoke. This sounds better than 'D' Indeed option 'A' clearly shows increase in tobacco sales but number of adults who smoke has increased not decreased. any alternate explanation.??
1. The cotton farms of Country Q became so productive that the market could not absorb all that they produced. Consequently, cotton prices fell. The government tried to boost cotton prices by offering farmers who took 25 percent of their cotton acreage out of production direct support payments up to a specified maximum per farm.
The governments program, if successful, will not be a net burden on the budget. Which of the following, if true, is the best basis for an explanation of how this could be so?
(A) Depressed cotton prices meant operating losses for cotton farms, and the government lost revenue from taxes on farm profits.
(B) Cotton production in several counties other than Q declined slightly the year that the support-payment program went into effect in Q.
(C) The first year that the support-payment program was in effect, cotton acreage in Q was 5% below its level in the base year for the program.
(D) The specified maximum per farm meant that for very large cotton farms the support payments were less per acre for those acres that were withdrawn from production than they were for smaller farms.
(E) Farmers who wished to qualify for support payments could not use the cotton acreage that was withdrawn from production to grow any other crop.
The governments program, if successful, will not be a net burden on the budget. Which of the following, if true, is the best basis for an explanation of how this could be so?
(A) Depressed cotton prices meant operating losses for cotton farms, and the government lost revenue from taxes on farm profits.
(B) Cotton production in several counties other than Q declined slightly the year that the support-payment program went into effect in Q.
(C) The first year that the support-payment program was in effect, cotton acreage in Q was 5% below its level in the base year for the program.
(D) The specified maximum per farm meant that for very large cotton farms the support payments were less per acre for those acres that were withdrawn from production than they were for smaller farms.
(E) Farmers who wished to qualify for support payments could not use the cotton acreage that was withdrawn from production to grow any other crop.
1. The cotton farms of Country Q became so productive that the market could not absorb all that they produced. Consequently, cotton prices fell. The government tried to boost cotton prices by offering farmers who took 25 percent of their cotton acreage out of production direct support payments up to a specified maximum per farm.
The governments program, if successful, will not be a net burden on the budget. Which of the following, if true, is the best basis for an explanation of how this could be so?
(A) Depressed cotton prices meant operating losses for cotton farms, and the government lost revenue from taxes on farm profits.
(B) Cotton production in several counties other than Q declined slightly the year that the support-payment program went into effect in Q.
(C) The first year that the support-payment program was in effect, cotton acreage in Q was 5% below its level in the base year for the program.
(D) The specified maximum per farm meant that for very large cotton farms the support payments were less per acre for those acres that were withdrawn from production than they were for smaller farms.
(E) Farmers who wished to qualify for support payments could not use the cotton acreage that was withdrawn from production to grow any other crop.
I will go with (A).....on support payment from govt. the cotton prices will get a boost & the farm profits will increase, in turn the paid amount will get recovered in terms of taxes on profits......so no overhead on govt.
(B) talks about other countries.
(C) Doesn't explain how the policy will not be an overhead.
(D) Comparison of farms is not required here
(E) irrelevant.
nilesh376 SaysOA 'A' Cant seem to understand why its not between D or E.. B and C are out due to obvious reason Option D the tobacco sales have increased but number of adults remained same. not decreased E again shows increased sales in tobbaco but doesnt say anything about decrease in adult who smoke. This sounds better than 'D' Indeed option 'A' clearly shows increase in tobacco sales but number of adults who smoke has increased not decreased. any alternate explanation.??
You will notice that the question asks which of the options will NOT support the given statement. D and E (and indeed B and C) will support it to some extent.
~lakesidey
1. The cotton farms of Country Q became so productive that the market could not absorb all that they produced. Consequently, cotton prices fell. The government tried to boost cotton prices by offering farmers who took 25 percent of their cotton acreage out of production direct support payments up to a specified maximum per farm.
The governments program, if successful, will not be a net burden on the budget. Which of the following, if true, is the best basis for an explanation of how this could be so?
(A) Depressed cotton prices meant operating losses for cotton farms, and the government lost revenue from taxes on farm profits.
(B) Cotton production in several counties other than Q declined slightly the year that the support-payment program went into effect in Q.
(C) The first year that the support-payment program was in effect, cotton acreage in Q was 5% below its level in the base year for the program.
(D) The specified maximum per farm meant that for very large cotton farms the support payments were less per acre for those acres that were withdrawn from production than they were for smaller farms.
(E) Farmers who wished to qualify for support payments could not use the cotton acreage that was withdrawn from production to grow any other crop.
I will go with A
Threesome CR doze:-
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 Roger's 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 year's 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
1st question seems to be taken from DI or QA
3rd question is a factual question from Commerce. We need to find a demerit of historical costing. Let me explain about historical costing: It is an accounting preces where assets are recorded at purchase value rather than at market price. It does not consider time value though there is a time value attached to all assets. eg, let say u bought a machinery at Rs 1 crore 10 yrs back, as per historical costing its price is 10 crore now also, but the market price is less because nobody will pay 1 core for a 10 yr old machinery. So the major disadvantage is it does not value at market price.
Inefficient use of funds means blocking of fund without realizing any profit from it. This is why companies do not maintain much inventory, because they are incurring inventory cost. Now come to question, we dont know know when those weapons got produced. And military contractors will not sell at loss, so they will add cost incurred for storing those weapons for these many years. Since the govt is ready to pay last yrs contractual price plus inflation without looking at current market price, it might end up paying more for past inefficient use of funds ie storage(inventory) cost and all.
This is a standard question from commerce and OA is A