Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.
Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author's claims above?
I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.
II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.
III. The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000.
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) I and II only
(E) I, II, and III
In many surveys, American consumers have expressed a willingness to spend up to 10 percent more for products that are ecologically sound. Encouraged by such surveys, Bleach-O Corporation promoted a new laundry detergent, Bleach-O Green, as safer for the environment. Bleach-O Green cost 5 percent more than typical detergents. After one year, Bleach-O Green had failed to capture a significant share of the detergent market and was withdrawn from sale.
Which of the following questions is LEAST likely to be relevant in determining the reasons for the failure of Bleach-O Green?
(A) How effective as a detergent was Bleach-O Green?
(B) How many other detergents on the market were promoted as safe for the environment?
(C) How much more did Bleach-O Green cost to manufacture than ordinary detergents?
(D) To what extent did consumers accept the validity of Bleach-O Green advertised and promoted to consumers?
(E) How effectively was Bleach-O Green advertised and promoted to consumers?
Hello,
I am posting one of the classic critical reasoning problem:
try solving this and know/learn the explanation of the same well.
once you understand such a problem I am sure most of your CR fear is out.
try this:
Option C looks the best to me .. Plz post the OA ..
Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.
Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author's claims above?
I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.
II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.
III. The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000.
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) I and II only
(E) I, II, and III
In many surveys, American consumers have expressed a willingness to spend up to 10 percent more for products that are ecologically sound. Encouraged by such surveys, Bleach-O Corporation promoted a new laundry detergent, Bleach-O Green, as safer for the environment. Bleach-O Green cost 5 percent more than typical detergents. After one year, Bleach-O Green had failed to capture a significant share of the detergent market and was withdrawn from sale.
Which of the following questions is LEAST likely to be relevant in determining the reasons for the failure of Bleach-O Green?
(A) How effective as a detergent was Bleach-O Green?
(B) How many other detergents on the market were promoted as safe for the environment?
(C) How much more did Bleach-O Green cost to manufacture than ordinary detergents?
(D) To what extent did consumers accept the validity of Bleach-O Green advertised and promoted to consumers?
(E) How effectively was Bleach-O Green advertised and promoted to consumers?
my take..
1. D
2. B
my take..
1. D
2. B
OAs are:
1)D and 2) C.
can you explain how you picked the statement I for the question 1. I think we need to assume that farm subsidies are paid from tax-payers money. i am not sure is it advisable to assume or not and i choose II only.
regarding second question it is still not clear to me how OA is C.
OAs are:
1)D and 2) C.
can you explain how you picked the statement I for the question 1. I think we need to assume that farm subsidies are paid from tax-payers money. i am not sure is it advisable to assume or not and i choose II only.
regarding second question it is still not clear to me how OA is C.
yes.. it is always better not to assume anything in CR questions.. but we can take facts and universal truths as granted in CR..
for the 2nd question, i'd still stick to my answer.. some1 plz prove me wrong wid ur justification..
the conclusion of the argument is that the detergent failed to occupy "Market Share"...it has nothing to do with whther it was manufactured at higher or lesser price...so i think C is the correct ans for 2nd ques.
For the first one my opinion is D
MissionPGPX SaysI agree, OA has to be wrong. It should be D.
I agree with that too. Did someone confirm. I want to make sure that my line of reasoning is correct.
1. D - straight forward (Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices)
2. B - I don't see any reason how C can be correct.. how am i even bothered with the production cost...
prices.
II.
In many surveys, American consumers have expressed a willingness to spend up to 10 percent more for products that are ecologically sound. Encouraged by such surveys, Bleach-O Corporation promoted a new laundry detergent, Bleach-O Green, as safer for the environment. Bleach-O Green cost 5 percent more than typical detergents. After one year, Bleach-O Green had failed to capture a significant share of the detergent market and was withdrawn from sale.
Which of the following questions is LEAST likely to be relevant in determining the reasons for the failure of Bleach-O Green?
(A) How effective as a detergent was Bleach-O Green?
(B) How many other detergents on the market were promoted as safe for the environment?
(C) How much more did Bleach-O Green cost to manufacture than ordinary detergents?
(D) To what extent did consumers accept the validity of Bleach-O Green advertised and promoted to consumers?
(E) How effectively was Bleach-O Green advertised and promoted to consumers?
Actually in this question we have to find the option which least likely explain the conclusion which is -
"After one year, Bleach-O Green had failed to capture a significant share of the detergent market and was withdrawn from sale"
There are few premise in this sentence as
Premise 1 - In many surveys ( logically all ) American consumers have expressed a willingness to spend up to 10 percent more for products that are ecologically sound.
Premise 2 /Conclusion 1 - Encouraged by such surveys, Bleach-O Corporation promoted a new laundry detergent, Bleach-O Green, as safer for the environment. Bleach-O Green cost 5 percent more than typical detergents.
A -> the answer to this question is relevant as Bleach-O was competing in the sector of detergents only and its failure must surely depend on its quality as detergent.
B -> answer to this question is most relevant to know as the by Premise 1 it is clear that Americans consumer had more willingness(10%) to spend for the ecologically sound products and so if other detergents are also promoted effectively as environmentally safe then there will be greater chance that people will buy them as Bleach-o- green is 5 %more costly resulting Bleach-o green failure to capture the market. and equally important is to find their numbers ( answer to many ) who have advertised themselves as ecologically sound detergent as more is their number more is the competition.
C -> this option will not have any effect on the conclusion as cost to manufacture has no relation with the failed market share and is very far from our argument claim.
D, E -> this is also relevant as indicated by premise 1 Americans are more willing to purchase ecologically sound product an if Bleach o-green has failed to convince the customer effectively through advertisement about its ecologically sound base or customer did not accept its validity then might also Detergent get failed to capture the market.
1. D - straight forward (Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices)
2. B - I don't see any reason how C can be correct.. how am i even bothered with the production cost...
thanks arnav. I need to practice the basic skill of reading answer choices carefully and actively.
For 2nd question, u r right, we are not bothered about the production cost and thats why its the LEAST important question in finding the reason. @dare2, i think u r assuming that production cost has an effect on price, which is true in general but i dnt think we should assume that here. B shows competition, which could possibly be a better question than C. So the best choice is C.
Thanks puys and happy sunday!!
Technically a given category of insurance policy is under priced if, over time, claims against it plus expenses associated with it exceed total income from premiums. But premium income can be invested and will then yield returns of its own. Therefore, an under priced policy does not represent a net loss in every case.
The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) No insurance policies are deliberately under priced in order to attract customers to the insurance company offering such policies.
(B) A policy that represents a net loss to the insurance company is not an under priced policy in every case.
(C) There are policies for which the level of claims per year can be predicted with great accuracy before premiums are set.
(D) The income earned by investing premium income is the most important determinant of an insurance companys profits.
(E) The claims against at least some under priced policies do not require paying out all of the premium income from those policies as soon as it is earned.
IMO answer should be B. please post your explanations and answers. i couldnt find OA.
Googled for this question and found this...Answer should be (E)
do this correctly in Dons, a chain of supermarkets, has entered into an agreement in which Rose Computers will sell Dons an unlimited number of its least expensive PCs at one-fourth the regular wholesale price. In return, Dons has agreed to purchase all of its scanners and other electronic information-processing equipment from Rose or from Omicron, Rose Computers parent company, for the next ten years. Dons will offer a Rose PC free to any school that turns in Dons register receipts totaling $100,000 within the next six months. The vice-president in charge of advertising for Dons expects that the computer giveaway will obviate the need for a massive new advertising campaign for the next six months and that Dons can make up the expenditures for the PCs by writing them off its income taxes as charitable donations.
The plans formulated by Dons assume each of the following EXCEPT:
(A) The prices that Rose or Omicron charges Dons for information-processing equipment over the next ten years will be lower than those charged by other companies.
(B) The tax laws will not be changed to exclude or lessen the value of charitable donations as tax write-offs.
(C) Schools will be sufficiently attracted by Dons computer giveaway offer that teachers will urge students to shop at Dons.
(D) Rose will be able to supply Dons with a sufficient number of PCs to meet the demand generated by schools that collect Dons receipts totaling $100,000.
(E) The effect of the computer giveaway offer on Dons business will be comparable to that of a major advertising campaign.
mukultcs SaysGoogled for this question and found this...Answer should be (E)
Thanks a ton mukul for trying to find the right answer. Unfortunately, i am not yet convinced what is wrong with B. OK fine E can be a possible choice but so is B. 😞
do this correctly in
Dons, a chain of supermarkets, has entered into an agreement in which Rose Computers will sell Dons an unlimited number of its least expensive PCs at one-fourth the regular wholesale price. In return, Dons has agreed to purchase all of its scanners and other electronic information-processing equipment from Rose or from Omicron, Rose Computers parent company, for the next ten years. Dons will offer a Rose PC free to any school that turns in Dons register receipts totaling $100,000 within the next six months. The vice-president in charge of advertising for Dons expects that the computer giveaway will obviate the need for a massive new advertising campaign for the next six months and that Dons can make up the expenditures for the PCs by writing them off its income taxes as charitable donations.
The plans formulated by Dons assume each of the following EXCEPT:
(A) The prices that Rose or Omicron charges Dons for information-processing equipment over the next ten years will be lower than those charged by other companies.
(B) The tax laws will not be changed to exclude or lessen the value of charitable donations as tax write-offs.
(C) Schools will be sufficiently attracted by Dons computer giveaway offer that teachers will urge students to shop at Dons.
(D) Rose will be able to supply Dons with a sufficient number of PCs to meet the demand generated by schools that collect Dons receipts totaling $100,000.
(E) The effect of the computer giveaway offer on Dons business will be comparable to that of a major advertising campaign.
I'll go with Option A
smokinskull86 SaysI'll go with Option A
Bingo... please post your reasoning and enlighten us...
MissionPGPX SaysThanks a ton mukul for trying to find the right answer. Unfortunately, i am not yet convinced what is wrong with B. OK fine E can be a possible choice but so is B. :-(
Ok...Lets say B is wrong so "A policy that represents a net loss to the insurance company is (removed not) an under priced policy in every case." Now lets say some 100 policies are underpriced ,but lets say some 50 still had premium income invested and were not at loss , so in all only 50 were in loss. All of these 50 policies are also underpriced.
So our conclusion still held true even though point B is now false.
I hope it didnt become even more confusing 😃
MissionPGPX SaysBingo... please post your reasoning and enlighten us...
The option b is wrong since it is clearly stated that they want to get tax exemption through charity. With C, it has been mentioned that they'd give free PCs to school with receipts totalling more than $100,000. So they assume that the teachers would encourage the students for Don's. With D, they're expecting large sales, so they'll be confident of meeting the requirements. As far as E is concerned, it is clearly stated the proposed scheme would help in a sort of advertising. This leaves with option A.
smokinskull86 SaysI'll go with Option A
Option A
In the argument it is never mentioned that Don's is expecting to buy Info. Processing equipments at a cheaper price...they are getting an offer from Rose only for cheaper computers...over the period of next 10 years the price of Info Processing equipments might increase or decrease for that matter...So A..
C comes close but kicking off the campaign means they are expecting this to happen...thus its an assumption...
1. D - straight forward (Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices)
how can it b so straight forward?? when this statement clearly means
1. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts, and
2. Farm subsidies amount to $12 billion more in higher food prices
and both these subsidies are paid(by govt.) through the tax-payers money, which is a fact(as all subsidies paid by any govt. in any country is through tax-payers money)..
Actually in this question we have to find the option which least likely explain the conclusion which is -
"After one year, Bleach-O Green had failed to capture a significant share of the detergent market and was withdrawn from sale"
There are few premise in this sentence as
Premise 1 - In many surveys ( logically all ) American consumers have expressed a willingness to spend up to 10 percent more for products that are ecologically sound.
Premise 2 /Conclusion 1 - Encouraged by such surveys, Bleach-O Corporation promoted a new laundry detergent, Bleach-O Green, as safer for the environment. Bleach-O Green cost 5 percent more than typical detergents.
A -> the answer to this question is relevant as Bleach-O was competing in the sector of detergents only and its failure must surely depend on its quality as detergent.
B -> answer to this question is most relevant to know as the by Premise 1 it is clear that Americans consumer had more willingness(10%) to spend for the ecologically sound products and so if other detergents are also promoted effectively as environmentally safe then there will be greater chance that people will buy them as Bleach-o- green is 5 %more costly resulting Bleach-o green failure to capture the market. and equally important is to find their numbers ( answer to many ) who have advertised themselves as ecologically sound detergent as more is their number more is the competition.
C -> this option will not have any effect on the conclusion as cost to manufacture has no relation with the failed market share and is very far from our argument claim.
D, E -> this is also relevant as indicated by premise 1 Americans are more willing to purchase ecologically sound product an if Bleach o-green has failed to convince the customer effectively through advertisement about its ecologically sound base or customer did not accept its validity then might also Detergent get failed to capture the market.
nice explanation fren.. i've realised where i went wrong in this question..