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!!
isn't this a fact?? ok no more arguments.. 😃 i can see now y option C is a better choice..
isn't this a fact?? ok no more arguments.. 😃 i can see now y option C is a better choice..
never back off on arguments unless u convince or u r convined. OK yeah it is a fact, but in this case, we have no information about whether the company priced its product in profit or in loss. So we cant assume that company applied that fact apparently.
The reason much refrigerated food spoils is that it ends up out of sight at the back of the shelf. So why not have round shelves that rotate? Because such rotating shelves would have just the same sort of drawback, since things would fall off the shelves' edges into the rear corners.
Which of the following is presupposed in the argument against introducing rotating shelves?
(A) Refrigerators would not be made so that their interior space is cylindrical. (B) Refrigerators would not be made to have a window in front for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door. (C) The problem of spoilage of refrigerated food is not amenable to any solution based on design changes. (D) Refrigerators are so well designed that there are bound to be drawbacks to any design change. (E) Rotating shelves would be designed to rotate only while the refrigerator door was open.
The reason much refrigerated food spoils is that it ends up out of sight at the back of the shelf. So why not have round shelves that rotate? Because such rotating shelves would have just the same sort of drawback, since things would fall off the shelves' edges into the rear corners.
Which of the following is presupposed in the argument against introducing rotating shelves?
(A) Refrigerators would not be made so that their interior space is cylindrical. (B) Refrigerators would not be made to have a window in front for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door. (C) The problem of spoilage of refrigerated food is not amenable to any solution based on design changes. (D) Refrigerators are so well designed that there are bound to be drawbacks to any design change. (E) Rotating shelves would be designed to rotate only while the refrigerator door was open.
Conclusion is - "So why not have round shelves that rotate?" - Answer to this question
Premise - "Because such rotating shelves would have just the same sort of drawback, since things would fall off the shelves' edges into the rear corners"
This is a clear premise as it is giving answer to the question asked above so our inferred conclusion is "We cannot have round shelves that can rotate by this premise "
Now there is a scope of shift in the premise and the conclusion as in premise it is clear that although we may have rotating shelf but it will not eliminate the problem as things would fall off the shelves edges into the rear corner which clearly conveys that shelf are not round as they have fron t and rear corners. Whereas in conclusion claiming question it has asked that why not have round rotating shelves
Therefore our assumption must be the one which can remove this scope of shift.
A -> It clearly remove this shift by saying that refrigerators interior cannot be made cylindrical, so we cannot have round shelves and premise verified it. . Others options are irrelevant
The reason much refrigerated food spoils is that it ends up out of sight at the back of the shelf. So why not have round shelves that rotate? Because such rotating shelves would have just the same sort of drawback, since things would fall off the shelves' edges into the rear corners.
Which of the following is presupposed in the argument against introducing rotating shelves?
(A) Refrigerators would not be made so that their interior space is cylindrical. (B) Refrigerators would not be made to have a window in front for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door. (C) The problem of spoilage of refrigerated food is not amenable to any solution based on design changes. (D) Refrigerators are so well designed that there are bound to be drawbacks to any design change. (E) Rotating shelves would be designed to rotate only while the refrigerator door was open.
i would have 2 disagree wid atrish on the conclusion even though my answer choice is same, option A..
conclusion : Because such rotating shelves would have just the same sort of drawback, since things would fall off the shelves' edges into the rear corners.
our assumption should be based on the conclusion above..
if the interior of the refrigerator is cylindrical, then things wont fall off the edges into the rear corners.. only options A satisfies.. all other options r far from the conclusion..
i would have 2 disagree wid atrish on the conclusion even though my answer choice is same, option A..
conclusion : Because such rotating shelves would have just the same sort of drawback, since things would fall off the shelves' edges into the rear corners.
our assumption should be based on the conclusion above..
if the interior of the refrigerator is cylindrical, then things wont fall off the edges into the rear corners.. only options A satisfies.. all other options r far from the conclusion..
My line of reasoning is also the same. To put it mathematically: Premise + assumption/presupposition = conclusion. Things spoil because they fall in corner so why not have rotating shelves to solve this problem + it would still have corners/not cylindrical in which the things could fall = Therefore, a rotating shelf will not solve the problem of things falling in corners.
1. In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a third-party candidate into an election race damages the chances of only one of the two major candidates. The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate. Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed. If the factual information in the passage above is true, which of the following can be most reliably inferred from it? (A) If the political platform of the third party is a compromise position between that of the two major parties, the third party will draw its voters equally from the two major parties. (B) If, before the emergence of a third party, voters were divided equally between the two major parties, neither of the major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote. (C) A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the two major parties. (D) The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties. (E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
2. Companies considering new cost-cutting manufacturing processes often compare the projected results of making the investment against the alternative of not making the investment with costs, selling prices, and share of market remaining constant. Which of the following, assuming that each is a realistic possibility, constitutes the most serious disadvantage for companies of using the method above for evaluating the financial benefit of new manufacturing processes? (A) The costs of materials required by the new process might not be known with certainty. (B) In several years interest rates might go down, reducing the interest costs of borrowing money to pay for the investment. (C) Some cost-cutting processes might require such expensive investments that there would be no net gain for many years, until the investment was paid for by savings in the manufacturing process. (D) Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take market share away from companies that do not. (E) The period of year chosen for averaging out the cost of the investment might be somewhat longer or shorter, thus affecting the result.
1. In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a third-party candidate into an election race damages the chances of only one of the two major candidates. The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate. Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed. If the factual information in the passage above is true, which of the following can be most reliably inferred from it? (A) If the political platform of the third party is a compromise position between that of the two major parties, the third party will draw its voters equally from the two major parties. (B) If, before the emergence of a third party, voters were divided equally between the two major parties, neither of the major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote. (C) A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the two major parties. (D) The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties.----Stance of third party only will decide the outcome of election (E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
2. Companies considering new cost-cutting manufacturing processes often compare the projected results of making the investment against the alternative of not making the investment with costs, selling prices, and share of market remaining constant. Which of the following, assuming that each is a realistic possibility, constitutes the most serious disadvantage for companies of using the method above for evaluating the financial benefit of new manufacturing processes? (A) The costs of materials required by the new process might not be known with certainty. (B) In several years interest rates might go down, reducing the interest costs of borrowing money to pay for the investment. (C) Some cost-cutting processes might require such expensive investments that there would be no net gain for many years, until the investment was paid for by savings in the manufacturing process. (D) Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take market share away from companies that do not.-----market share should remain constant is one of the comparison parameters , if that dwindles ultimately existing processes will suffer (E) The period of year chosen for averaging out the cost of the investment might be somewhat longer or shorter, thus affecting the result.
my take D--D
pl. post the OA for previous one and this one too after some time...
1. In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a third-party candidate into an election race damages the chances of only one of the two major candidates. The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate. Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed. If the factual information in the passage above is true, which of the following can be most reliably inferred from it? (A) If the political platform of the third party is a compromise position between that of the two major parties, the third party will draw its voters equally from the two major parties. (B) If, before the emergence of a third party, voters were divided equally between the two major parties, neither of the major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote. (C) A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the two major parties. (D) The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties. (E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
2. Companies considering new cost-cutting manufacturing processes often compare the projected results of making the investment against the alternative of not making the investment with costs, selling prices, and share of market remaining constant. Which of the following, assuming that each is a realistic possibility, constitutes the most serious disadvantage for companies of using the method above for evaluating the financial benefit of new manufacturing processes? (A) The costs of materials required by the new process might not be known with certainty. (B) In several years interest rates might go down, reducing the interest costs of borrowing money to pay for the investment. (C) Some cost-cutting processes might require such expensive investments that there would be no net gain for many years, until the investment was paid for by savings in the manufacturing process. (D) Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take market share away from companies that do not. (E) The period of year chosen for averaging out the cost of the investment might be somewhat longer or shorter, thus affecting the result.
My take:
1. B
2. D
Bud let me know the OAs ofcourse 😁 and the source; is it 1000 CR?
Full marks .. !! Now, please share the reason behind them too !
These appear to be based on pure mathematical logic; especially the 1st one. reasoned aligned with the options.
1. In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a third-party candidate into an election race damages the chances of only one of the two major candidates. The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate. Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed. If the factual information in the passage above is true, which of the following can be most reliably inferred from it? (A) If the political platform of the third party is a compromise position between that of the two major parties, the third party will draw its voters equally from the two major parties.
(B) If, before the emergence of a third party, voters were divided equally between the two major parties, neither of the major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote. - (C) A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the two major parties. (D) The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties. (E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
premise 1: When 2 competing parties, the 3rd only damages the chances of one of those premise 2: The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate. Conclusion (though not needed for this question):Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed. Inference/Must be true: B The math: Two parties = A, B; 3rd C Total votes = T A's votes = 0.5T B's votes = 0.5T Since C can affect either A or B but not both; If C affects A : A's votes - C votes OR If C affects B : B's votes - C votes Inference: A's or B's votes are less than or equal to 0.5T
2. Companies considering new cost-cutting manufacturing processes often compare the projected results of making the investment against the alternative of not making the investment with costs, selling prices, and share of market remaining constant. Which of the following, assuming that each is a realistic possibility, constitutes the most serious disadvantage for companies of using the method above for evaluating the financial benefit of new manufacturing processes? (A) The costs of materials required by the new process might not be known with certainty. (B) In several years interest rates might go down, reducing the interest costs of borrowing money to pay for the investment. (C) Some cost-cutting processes might require such expensive investments that there would be no net gain for many years, until the investment was paid for by savings in the manufacturing process. (D) Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take market share away from companies that do not. (E) The period of year chosen for averaging out the cost of the investment might be somewhat longer or shorter, thus affecting the result.
The question asks for the disadvantage of the new method: A : proves that the method is advantageous(i.e. doubts the investment is good) hence Eliminated B : Out of scope; the argument does not say that the company will take loans and pay interests. C : proves that the method is advantageous(i.e. doubts the investment is good) hence Eliminated D: Correct; Proves that if the competitors that invest in a new process possibly educe their selling prices and thus take market share away from companies that do not. E: proves that the method is advantageous(i.e. doubts the investment is good) hence Eliminated
These appear to be based on pure mathematical logic; especially the 1st one. reasoned aligned with the options.
premise 1: When 2 competing parties, the 3rd only damages the chances of one of those premise 2: The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate. Conclusion (though not needed for this question):Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed. Inference/Must be true: B The math: Two parties = A, B; 3rd C Total votes = T A's votes = 0.5T B's votes = 0.5T Since C can affect either A or B but not both; If C affects A : A's votes - C votes OR If C affects B : B's votes - C votes Inference: A's or B's votes are less than or equal to 0.5T The question asks for the disadvantage of the new method: A : proves that the method is advantageous(i.e. doubts the investment is good) hence Eliminated B : Out of scope; the argument does not say that the company will take loans and pay interests. C : proves that the method is advantageous(i.e. doubts the investment is good) hence Eliminated D: Correct; Proves that if the competitors that invest in a new process possibly educe their selling prices and thus take market share away from companies that do not. E: proves that the method is advantageous(i.e. doubts the investment is good) hence Eliminated
beautifully solved.. couldn't agree more on the explanations provided..
These appear to be based on pure mathematical logic; especially the 1st one. reasoned aligned with the options.
premise 1: When 2 competing parties, the 3rd only damages the chances of one of those premise 2: The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate. Conclusion (though not needed for this question):Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed. Inference/Must be true: B The math: Two parties = A, B; 3rd C Total votes = T A's votes = 0.5T B's votes = 0.5T Since C can affect either A or B but not both; If C affects A : A's votes - C votes OR If C affects B : B's votes - C votes Inference: A's or B's votes are less than or equal to 0.5T The question asks for the disadvantage of the new method: A : proves that the method is advantageous(i.e. doubts the investment is good) hence Eliminated B : Out of scope; the argument does not say that the company will take loans and pay interests. C : proves that the method is advantageous(i.e. doubts the investment is good) hence Eliminated D: Correct; Proves that if the competitors that invest in a new process possibly educe their selling prices and thus take market share away from companies that do not. E: proves that the method is advantageous(i.e. doubts the investment is good) hence Eliminated
try this.. 6."Fast cycle time" is a strategy of designing a manufacturing organization to eliminate bottlenecks and delays in production. Not only does it speed up production, but it also assures quality. The reason is that the bottlenecks and delays cannot be eliminated unless all work is done right the first time. The claim about quality made above rests on a questionable presupposition that (A) any flaw in work on a product would cause a bottleneck or delay and so would be prevented from occurring on a "fast cycle" production line (B) the strategy of "fast cycle time" would require fundamental rethinking of product design (C) the primary goal of the organization is to produce a product of unexcelled quality, rather than to generate profits for stockholders (D) "fast cycle time" could be achieved by shaving time off each of the component processes in production cycle (E) "fast cycle time" is a concept in business strategy that has not yet been put into practice in a factory
6."Fast cycle time" is a strategy of designing a manufacturing organization to eliminate bottlenecks and delays in production. Not only does it speed up production, but it also assures quality. The reason is that the bottlenecks and delays cannot be eliminated unless all work is done right the first time. The claim about quality made above rests on a questionable presupposition that (A) any flaw in work on a product would cause a bottleneck or delay and so would be prevented from occurring on a "fast cycle" production line (B) the strategy of "fast cycle time" would require fundamental rethinking of product design (C) the primary goal of the organization is to produce a product of unexcelled quality, rather than to generate profits for stockholders (D) "fast cycle time" could be achieved by shaving time off each of the component processes in production cycle (E) "fast cycle time" is a concept in business strategy that has not yet been put into practice in a factory
try this.. 6. "Fast cycle time" is a strategy of designing a manufacturing organization to eliminate bottlenecks and delays in production. Not only does it speed up production, but it also assures quality. The reason is that the bottlenecks and delays cannot be eliminated unless all work is done right the first time. The claim about quality made above rests on a questionable presupposition that (A) any flaw in work on a product would cause a bottleneck or delay and so would be prevented from occurring on a "fast cycle" production line (B) the strategy of "fast cycle time" would require fundamental rethinking of product design (C) the primary goal of the organization is to produce a product of unexcelled quality, rather than to generate profits for stockholders (D) "fast cycle time" could be achieved by shaving time off each of the component processes in production cycle (E) "fast cycle time" is a concept in business strategy that has not yet been put into practice in a factory
A Correct : As the argument suggests : ' bottlenecks and delays cannot be eliminated unless all work is done right the first time.', therefore the assumption is that flaws would be prevented in the "Fast cycle time". If flaws are prevented; it will result in a better quality. B Out of scope(The argument only talks about 'designing a manufacturing organization' not 'product design') :Eliminated C Out of scope :Eliminated D suggests that the quality will decline: Eliminated E Out of scope :Eliminated
Out of scope = The argument does not contain this information.
6.Fast cycle time is a strategy of designing a manufacturing organization to eliminate bottlenecks and delays in production. Not only does it speed up production, but it also assures quality. The reason is that the bottlenecks and delays cannot be eliminated unless all work is done right the first time. The claim about quality made above rests on a questionable presupposition that (A) any flaw in work on a product would cause a bottleneck or delay and so would be prevented from occurring on a fast cycle production line (B) the strategy of fast cycle time would require fundamental rethinking of product design (C) the primary goal of the organization is to produce a product of unexcelled quality, rather than to generate profits for stockholders (D) fast cycle time could be achieved by shaving time off each of the component processes in production cycle (E) fast cycle time is a concept in business strategy that has not yet been put into practice in a factory
IMO A...just because everything else looks so out of context
6.Fast cycle time is a strategy of designing a manufacturing organization to eliminate bottlenecks and delays in production. Not only does it speed up production, but it also assures quality. The reason is that the bottlenecks and delays cannot be eliminated unless all work is done right the first time. The claim about quality made above rests on a questionable presupposition that (A) any flaw in work on a product would cause a bottleneck or delay and so would be prevented from occurring on a fast cycle production line (B) the strategy of fast cycle time would require fundamental rethinking of product design (C) the primary goal of the organization is to produce a product of unexcelled quality, rather than to generate profits for stockholders (D) fast cycle time could be achieved by shaving time off each of the component processes in production cycle (E) fast cycle time is a concept in business strategy that has not yet been put into practice in a factory
