A city poll of the community showed that 88 percent of respondents believe that
an appropriate amount of the city budget is being spent on parks and recreation. It
seems, then, that any significant increase in the city budget should be spent on
something other than parks and recreation.
Which one of the following describes a flaw in reasoning in the above argument?
(A) The argument confuses a coincidence with a correlation.
(B) The argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on parks and
recreation with the amount of money spent on parks and recreation.
(C) The argument does not justify its presumption that what is true of a portion
of the budget also applies to the total budget.
(D) The argument fails to consider that less money could be spent and a significant
percentage of the community would still find that amount to be appropriate.
(E) The argument fails to consider that if more money from the budget were
spent on parks and recreation, then an even larger percentage of the
community might approve of that use of the budget.
Plz, explanation?
Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have some doubts about the truth of its contents. But news stories often include statements from anonymous sources, and these are usually quoted with the utmost respect. It makes sense to be skeptical of these sources, for, as in the case of the writer of an unsigned letter, their anonymity makes it possible for them to plant inaccurate or slanted statements without ever having to answer for them. The columnist's argument proceeds by
(A) pointing out that a certain attitude would presumably be adopted in one situation, in
order to support the claim that a similar attitude would be justified in an analogous situation
(B) drawing an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation and a
different attitude commonly adopted in another situation, and establishing that the latter
attitude is better justified than the former
(C) inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type
(D) calling into question a certain type of evidence by drawing an analogy between that evidence and other evidence that the argument shows is usually false
(E) calling into question the motives of those presenting certain information, and concluding
for this reason that the information is likely to be false
this is a good close one frm 1000 CR:
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.
A city poll of the community showed that 88 percent of respondents believe that
an appropriate amount of the city budget is being spent on parks and recreation. It
seems, then, that any significant increase in the city budget should be spent on
something other than parks and recreation.
Which one of the following describes a flaw in reasoning in the above argument?
(A) The argument confuses a coincidence with a correlation.
(B) The argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on parks and
recreation with the amount of money spent on parks and recreation.
(C) The argument does not justify its presumption that what is true of a portion
of the budget also applies to the total budget.
(D) The argument fails to consider that less money could be spent and a significant
percentage of the community would still find that amount to be appropriate.
(E) The argument fails to consider that if more money from the budget were
spent on parks and recreation, then an even larger percentage of the
community might approve of that use of the budget.
Plz, explanation?
IMO the answer is D .Plz post the OA.
Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have some doubts about the truth of its contents. But news stories often include statements from anonymous sources, and these are usually quoted with the utmost respect. It makes sense to be skeptical of these sources, for, as in the case of the writer of an unsigned letter, their anonymity makes it possible for them to plant inaccurate or slanted statements without ever having to answer for them. The columnist's argument proceeds by
(A) pointing out that a certain attitude would presumably be adopted in one situation, in
order to support the claim that a similar attitude would be justified in an analogous situation
(B) drawing an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation and a
different attitude commonly adopted in another situation, and establishing that the latter
attitude is better justified than the former
(C) inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type
(D) calling into question a certain type of evidence by drawing an analogy between that evidence and other evidence that the argument shows is usually false
(E) calling into question the motives of those presenting certain information, and concluding
for this reason that the information is likely to be false
IMO the answer is A. Plz post the OA.
this is a good close one frm 1000 CR:
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.
My pick is B. Plz post the OA.
Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have some doubts about the truth of its contents. But news stories often include statements from anonymous sources, and these are usually quoted with the utmost respect. It makes sense to be skeptical of these sources, for, as in the case of the writer of an unsigned letter, their anonymity makes it possible for them to plant inaccurate or slanted statements without ever having to answer for them. The columnists argument proceeds by
(A) pointing out that a certain attitude would presumably be adopted in one situation, in
order to support the claim that a similar attitude would be justified in an analogous situation
(B) drawing an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation and a
different attitude commonly adopted in another situation, and establishing that the latter
attitude is better justified than the former
(C) inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type
(D) calling into question a certain type of evidence by drawing an analogy between that evidence and other evidence that the argument shows is usually false
(E) calling into question the motives of those presenting certain information, and concluding
for this reason that the information is likely to be false
Is the answer B??
this is a good close one frm 1000 CR:
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The arguments reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.
option C is exactly conveying the same as passage,so its out
option A is out of ontext,so out
option B is contradicting the passage,so its out
among D and E ,i feel E to be more apt
A city poll of the community showed that 88 percent of respondents believe that
an appropriate amount of the city budget is being spent on parks and recreation. It
seems, then, that any significant increase in the city budget should be spent on
something other than parks and recreation.
Which one of the following describes a flaw in reasoning in the above argument?
(A) The argument confuses a coincidence with a correlation.
(B) The argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on parks and
recreation with the amount of money spent on parks and recreation.
(C) The argument does not justify its presumption that what is true of a portion
of the budget also applies to the total budget.
(D) The argument fails to consider that less money could be spent and a significant
percentage of the community would still find that amount to be appropriate.
(E) The argument fails to consider that if more money from the budget were
spent on parks and recreation, then an even larger percentage of the
community might approve of that use of the budget.
Plz, explanation?
option e .
Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have some doubts about the truth of its contents. But news stories often include statements from anonymous sources, and these are usually quoted with the utmost respect. It makes sense to be skeptical of these sources, for, as in the case of the writer of an unsigned letter, their anonymity makes it possible for them to plant inaccurate or slanted statements without ever having to answer for them. The columnists argument proceeds by
(A) pointing out that a certain attitude would presumably be adopted in one situation, in
order to support the claim that a similar attitude would be justified in an analogous situation
(B) drawing an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation and a
different attitude commonly adopted in another situation, and establishing that the latter
attitude is better justified than the former
(C) inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type
(D) calling into question a certain type of evidence by drawing an analogy between that evidence and other evidence that the argument shows is usually false
(E) calling into question the motives of those presenting certain information, and concluding
for this reason that the information is likely to be false
option b .
this is a good close one frm 1000 CR:
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The arguments reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.
option e .
A city poll of the community showed that 88 percent of respondents believe that
an appropriate amount of the city budget is being spent on parks and recreation. It
seems, then, that any significant increase in the city budget should be spent on
something other than parks and recreation.
Which one of the following describes a flaw in reasoning in the above argument?
(A) The argument confuses a coincidence with a correlation.
(B) The argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on parks and
recreation with the amount of money spent on parks and recreation.
(C) The argument does not justify its presumption that what is true of a portion
of the budget also applies to the total budget.
(D) The argument fails to consider that less money could be spent and a significant
percentage of the community would still find that amount to be appropriate.
(E) The argument fails to consider that if more money from the budget were
spent on parks and recreation, then an even larger percentage of the
community might approve of that use of the budget.
Plz, explanation?
My Take is D.
Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have some doubts about the truth of its contents. But news stories often include statements from anonymous sources, and these are usually quoted with the utmost respect. It makes sense to be skeptical of these sources, for, as in the case of the writer of an unsigned letter, their anonymity makes it possible for them to plant inaccurate or slanted statements without ever having to answer for them. The columnists argument proceeds by
(A) pointing out that a certain attitude would presumably be adopted in one situation, in
order to support the claim that a similar attitude would be justified in an analogous situation
(B) drawing an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation and a
different attitude commonly adopted in another situation, and establishing that the latter
attitude is better justified than the former
(C) inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type
(D) calling into question a certain type of evidence by drawing an analogy between that evidence and other evidence that the argument shows is usually false
(E) calling into question the motives of those presenting certain information, and concluding
for this reason that the information is likely to be false
My Take is B.
this is a good close one frm 1000 CR:
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The arguments reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.
My take is E.
[
Originally Posted by MissionPGPX View Post
A city poll of the community showed that 88 percent of respondents believe that an appropriate amount of the city budget is being spent on parks and recreation. It seems, then, that any significant increase in the city budget should be spent on something other than parks and recreation.
Which one of the following describes a flaw in reasoning in the above argument?
(A) The argument confuses a coincidence with a correlation.
(B) The argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on parks and
recreation with the amount of money spent on parks and recreation.
(C) The argument does not justify its presumption that what is true of a portion
of the budget also applies to the total budget.
(D) The argument fails to consider that less money could be spent and a significant
percentage of the community would still find that amount to be appropriate.
(E) The argument fails to consider that if more money from the budget were spent on parks and recreation, then an even larger percentage of the community might approve of that use of the budget.
Plz, explanation?
QUOTE=Magic_Awaits;2045338]My Take is D.
OA is E. The author argues that because 88% think an appropriate amount is being allocated to parks and rec, that no more ought to be spent.
But just because one believes that, say, $10 is an appropriate amount doesn't mean that he or she will think $15 is inappropriate. So the 88% who think an appropriate amount is already being allocated may agree that an even greater amount would also be appropriate. And some of the 12% who previously thought funding was inappropriate may find the increased allocation appropriate. Thus, one flaw in the reasoning is choice E.
[
Originally Posted by MissionPGPX View Post
this is a good close one frm 1000 CR:
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The arguments reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.
QUOTE=Magic_Awaits;2045344]My take is E.
OA is D. E is too close and even i first selected E only. but E has some flaws compared to D. Hope i can identify such minor details in real game,...
1) E says that "Drivers run a significant risk" whereas the stimulus speaks about lives in general (passengers, pedestrians etc).
2) E also is too strong because it says "only if they spend a lot of time on the road". It does not have to be the only risk, it can be one of the risks.
:o
Magic_Awaits SaysMy Take is B.
OA is A. I too went for B but really embarrassed...the simple way to put it is like this:
(A) pointing out that a certain attitude (DOUBT) would presumably be adopted in one situation (UNSIGNED LETTER), in order to support the claim that a similar attitude (DOUBT) would be justified in an analogous situation (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE QUOTING AN ANONYMOUS SOURCE).
this is a good close one frm 1000 CR:
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The arguments reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.
Ans--D) because
D)------- The amount of time taken is directly proportional to the effects on environment and lives.
E)----- The amount of time taken is directly proportional to only lives of drivers which have a significant risk, no mention of environment
Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have some doubts about the truth of its contents. But news stories often include statements from anonymous sources, and these are usually quoted with the utmost respect. It makes sense to be skeptical of these sources, for, as in the case of the writer of an unsigned letter, their anonymity makes it possible for them to plant inaccurate or slanted statements without ever having to answer for them. The columnists argument proceeds by
(A) pointing out that a certain attitude would presumably be adopted in one situation, in
order to support the claim that a similar attitude would be justified in an analogous situation
(B) drawing an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation and a
different attitude commonly adopted in another situation, and establishing that the latter
attitude is better justified than the former
(C) inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type
(D) calling into question a certain type of evidence by drawing an analogy between that evidence and other evidence that the argument shows is usually false
(E) calling into question the motives of those presenting certain information, and concluding
for this reason that the information is likely to be false
Ans--B)
B) and D) are opposites
if we change the last word of D) to "usually true" then D) is the best choice.
Some good cooks are gourmet cooks who pride themselves on always using extravagantly rich ingredients in elaborate recipes. Some good cooks can be characterized as fast-food cooks. They may use rich ingredients as long as the recipes are easy to follow and take little time. Other good cooks are health food enthusiasts, who are concerned primarily with the nutritional value of food. But even though not all good cooks are big eaters, they all enjoy preparing and serving food.
If the information in the passage is true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?
(A) Most good cooks do not use extravagantly rich ingredients.
(B) Everyone who enjoys preparing and serving food is a good cook.
(C) More good cooks who use extravagantly rich ingredients are big eaters than are good cooks who do not use such ingredients.
(D) There are fewer good cooks who enjoy serving and preparing food than there are good cooks who are big eaters.
(E) Gourmet cooks, fast-food cooks, and cooks who are health food enthusiasts are all big eaters.