hi Puys, I was not satisfied with the answer for this question. Someone pls explain...
The world's best coffee beans come from Colombia. The more Colombian beans in a blend of coffee, the better the blend, and no company purchases more Colombian beans than Kreemo Coffee, Inc. So it only stands to reason that if you buy a can of Kreemo's coffee, you're buying the best blended coffee available today. The reasoning of the argument in the advertisement is flawed because it overlooks the possibility that (A) the equipment used by Kreemo to blend and package its coffee is no different from that used by most other coffee producers (B) not all of Kreemo's competitors use Colombian coffee beans in the blends of coffee they sell (C) Kreemo sells more coffee than does any other company (D) Kreemo's coffee is the most expensive blended coffee available today (E) the best unblended coffee is better than the best blended coffee
hi Puys, I was not satisfied with the answer for this question. Someone pls explain...
The world's best coffee beans come from Colombia. The more Colombian beans in a blend of coffee, the better the blend, and no company purchases more Colombian beans than Kreemo Coffee, Inc. So it only stands to reason that if you buy a can of Kreemo's coffee, you're buying the best blended coffee available today. The reasoning of the argument in the advertisement is flawed because it overlooks the possibility that (A) the equipment used by Kreemo to blend and package its coffee is no different from that used by most other coffee producers (B) not all of Kreemo's competitors use Colombian coffee beans in the blends of coffee they sell (C) Kreemo sells more coffee than does any other company (D) Kreemo's coffee is the most expensive blended coffee available today (E) the best unblended coffee is better than the best blended coffee
I think the answer should be C.
As per passage - "The more Colombian beans in a blend of coffee, beteer the coffee is" and as Kreemo buys these beans than any other coffee company so Kreemo provides best coffee than any other competitior.
The basic assumption which lies in the above mentioned conclusion is that because Kreemo buys most of the colombian beans, Kreemo puts more of the beans in its coffee than any other competitiors. If this assumption is not correct, the conclusion will be flawed.
As per stmt C, Kreemo sells more coffee than does any other company that means suppose Kreemo buys 100g of beans but has 100 customers, each customer will get 1 bean per coffee. And its competitior who only buys 50g beans has 25 customer, each customer will get 2 beans per coffee. Hence, the competitior's coffee is better.
hi Puys, I was not satisfied with the answer for this question. Someone pls explain...
The world's best coffee beans come from Colombia. The more Colombian beans in a blend of coffee, the better the blend, and no company purchases more Colombian beans than Kreemo Coffee, Inc. So it only stands to reason that if you buy a can of Kreemo's coffee, you're buying the best blended coffee available today. The reasoning of the argument in the advertisement is flawed because it overlooks the possibility that (A) the equipment used by Kreemo to blend and package its coffee is no different from that used by most other coffee producers (B) not all of Kreemo's competitors use Colombian coffee beans in the blends of coffee they sell (C) Kreemo sells more coffee than does any other company (D) Kreemo's coffee is the most expensive blended coffee available today (E) the best unblended coffee is better than the best blended coffee
My pick is E It can't be A is the passage speaks of Colombian beans and not of equipment/packaging. It can't be B as it does not seak of competitors n wat they do/not do It can't be C. The fact that Kreemo sells more coffee than any other co. proves that its product is regarded thebest. D is irrelevant as we are talking abt various blends of coffee n not its cost. Only E goes to show that if true, the ad is flawed.
My pick is E It can't be A is the passage speaks of Colombian beans and not of equipment/packaging. It can't be B as it does not seak of competitors n wat they do/not do It can't be C. The fact that Kreemo sells more coffee than any other co. proves that its product is regarded thebest. D is irrelevant as we are talking abt various blends of coffee n not its cost. Only E goes to show that if true, the ad is flawed.
wats the OA?
OA is C...
Dopa, Thanks for your explanation.that cleared things up... 😃
In parts of the Caribbean, the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat. Having noted the manatee hunters' expert knowledge of manatees' habits, local conservationists are encouraging the hunters to stop hunting and instead to take tourists on boat rides to see manatees. Tourist interest is high, so the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees' survival. Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt about the plan's chance of success? A. Many tourists who visit these parts of the Caribbean are uninterested in manatees and would not be willing to pay what the former manatee hunters would have to charge for boat rides to see manatees. B. Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting the manatees' survival in jeopardy again. C. In areas where manatees have traditionally been hunted for food, local people could easily replace the manatee meat in their diets with other foods obtained from the sea. D. There would not be enough former manatee hunters to act as guides for all the tourists who want to see manatees. E. To maintain their current income, manatee hunters who switched to guiding tourists would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees' fragile habitat than they currently do.
In parts of the Caribbean, the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat. Having noted the manatee hunters expert knowledge of manatees habits, local conservationists are encouraging the hunters to stop hunting and instead to take tourists on boat rides to see manatees. Tourist interest is high, so the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees survival. Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt about the plans chance of success? A. Many tourists who visit these parts of the Caribbean are uninterested in manatees and would not be willing to pay what the former manatee hunters would have to charge for boat rides to see manatees. B. Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting the manatees survival in jeopardy again. C. In areas where manatees have traditionally been hunted for food, local people could easily replace the manatee meat in their diets with other foods obtained from the sea. D. There would not be enough former manatee hunters to act as guides for all the tourists who want to see manatees. E. To maintain their current income, manatee hunters who switched to guiding tourists would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees fragile habitat than they currently do.
The plans success is based on the fact that manatee tourism will provide economic benefits to former hunters. But if those guys have to invest lotsa money for getting the bigger boat and have to work much more harder to attain their previous economic benefit, they will not be interested.
In parts of the Caribbean, the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat. Having noted the manatee hunters' expert knowledge of manatees' habits, local conservationists are encouraging the hunters to stop hunting and instead to take tourists on boat rides to see manatees. Tourist interest is high, so the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees' survival. Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt about the plan's chance of success? A. Many tourists who visit these parts of the Caribbean are uninterested in manatees and would not be willing to pay what the former manatee hunters would have to charge for boat rides to see manatees. B. Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting the manatees' survival in jeopardy again. C. In areas where manatees have traditionally been hunted for food, local people could easily replace the manatee meat in their diets with other foods obtained from the sea. D. There would not be enough former manatee hunters to act as guides for all the tourists who want to see manatees. E. To maintain their current income, manatee hunters who switched to guiding tourists would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees' fragile habitat than they currently do.
my pick is A..
the whole plan depends on the interest of the tourists and consequently the income from it..if the tourists are not interested to see manatees or not willing to pay much..then the whole plan raises serious doubts on its success..
the whole plan depends on the interest of the tourists and consequently the income from it..if the tourists are not interested to see manatees or not willing to pay much..then the whole plan raises serious doubts on its success..
wats the OA?
At first i picked A too. OA is E. only after giving it some thought did i realize why A is not correct. (yes i m a tube light of sorts). The most obvious mistake i made was interpreting "Many" in option A as "Most". Option A says that many tourists are not interested and will not pay as much as the hunters will demand. But "many" does not mean "most" or "majority of". So for ex. maybe 500 tourists per day are not interested and will not pay. 500 can be said to be "many". But if a total of 5000 tourists visit daily, the other 4500 tourists are enough for the hunter's earnings.
At first i picked A too. OA is E. only after giving it some thought did i realize why A is not correct. (yes i m a tube light of sorts). The most obvious mistake i made was interpreting "Many" in option A as "Most". Option A says that many tourists are not interested and will not pay as much as the hunters will demand. But "many" does not mean "most" or "majority of". So for ex. maybe 500 tourists per day are not interested and will not pay. 500 can be said to be "many". But if a total of 5000 tourists visit daily, the other 4500 tourists are enough for the hunter's earnings.
Abouttime, there is another explicit reason to why A is not correct. The passage states that "tourist interest is high" !
Abouttime, there is another explicit reason to why A is not correct. The passage states that "tourist interest is high" !
Exactly - Many times this kind of options which seem obvious answers are a trap. If the option is denying any fact that is already mentioned in the passage, its definitely wrong.
Exactly - Many times this kind of options which seem obvious answers are a trap. If the option is denying any fact that is already mentioned in the passage, its definitely wrong.
But why E? so what if the hunters would have to use larger boats or make more no. of rides. hw does this weaken the argument that the proposal would help save manatees?
But why E? so what if the hunters would have to use larger boats or make more no. of rides. hw does this weaken the argument that the proposal would help save manatees?
thanks
Proposed plan - The hunters of manatee should stop killing these endangerd marine mammals. But why will the hunters do so, what about their income ? The conservationists propose that as these hunters of manatee know most about these mammals so they should start taking tourists on boat rides to see manatees.
This proposed plans has good prospects because tourist interest is high for manatees.
Which stmt weakens this plan ? If the manatee hunters have to buy far larger boats than they currently use and make more trips into the manatees' habitat, this sounds as it needs big investments both in terms of money and time.
This is the only option which weakens the plan after A is out.
Proposed plan - The hunters of manatee should stop killing these endangerd marine mammals. But why will the hunters do so, what about their income ? The conservationists propose that as these hunters of manatee know most about these mammals so they should start taking tourists on boat rides to see manatees.
This proposed plans has good prospects because tourist interest is high for manatees.
Which stmt weakens this plan ? If the manatee hunters have to buy far larger boats than they currently use and make more trips into the manatees' habitat, this sounds as it needs big investments both in terms of money and time.
This is the only option which weakens the plan after A is out.
Hope it helps!
What about option D. If there are not enough former hunters to act as guides the twin plan of preserving the mammal and also earning them income will be jeopardy.
What about option D. If there are not enough former hunters to act as guides the twin plan of preserving the mammal and also earning them income will be jeopardy.
D actually strengthens the argument.
If there arent enough hunters to act as guides, there will be a high demand for guides and they can expect to earn more from each tourist.
what is this CR 31 set please pm me your id if someone has it
I believe CR 31 set is a set of questions for CR. I found it in Vivek's post.He is one of the puys. I have pm -ed him.I shall forward it to you if i get it.
I believe CR 31 set is a set of questions for CR. I found it in Vivek's post.He is one of the puys. I have pm -ed him.I shall forward it to you if i get it.
1. Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health. In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles? A. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies. B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence. C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion. D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument. E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.
2. In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago. Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited? A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds. B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding. C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can. D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled. E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
1. Since it has become known that several of a banks top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the banks depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the banks financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the companys health. In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles? A. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies. B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence. C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion. D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument. E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.
2. In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago. Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited? A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds. B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding. C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can. D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled. E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
