Cn ny1 explain me dez idiotic qustns????
1. Scientists are sometimes said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case. Now suppose the question arises whether a given food additive is safe. At that point, it would be neither known to be safe nor known not to be safe. By the characterization above, scientists would assume the additive not to be safe because it has not been proven safe. But they would also assume it to be safe because it has not been proven otherwise. But no scientist could assume without contradiction that a given substance is both safe and not safe: so this characterization of scientists is clearly wrong.
Which one of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?
(A) A general statement is argued to be false by showing that it has deliberately been formulated to mislead.
(B) A statement is argued to be false by showing that taking it to be true leads to implausible consequences.
(C) A statement is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true.
（B）(D) A general statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that there are as many specific instances in which it is false as there are instances in which it is true.
(E) A statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that it supports no independently testable inferences.
2 Twenty years ago the Republic of Rosinia produced nearly 100 million tons of potatoes, but last year the harvest barely reached 60 million tons. Agricultural researchers, who have failed to develop new higher yielding strains of potatoes, are to blame for this decrease, since they have been concerned only with their own research and not with the needs of Rosinia.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Any current attempts by agricultural researchers to develop higher-yielding potato strains are futile.
(B) Strains of potatoes most commonly grown in Rosinia could not have produced the yields last year that they once did.
(C) Agricultural researchers often find concrete solutions to practical problems when investigating seemingly unrelated questions.
(D) Wide fluctuations in the size of the potato crop over a twenty-year period are not unusual.（B）
(E) Agricultural research in Rosinia is funded by government grants.
1. Scientists are sometimes said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case.
This is the argument
Now suppose the question arises whether a given food additive is safe. At that point, it would be neither known to be safe nor known not to be safe.
Just an example.
By the characterization above, scientists would assume the additive not to be safe because it has not been proven safe.
Proved A (say 1 way of looking at the argument)
But they would also assume it to be safe because it has not been proven otherwise.
Proved converse of A is also true.
But no scientist could assume without contradiction that a given substance is both safe and not safe: so this characterization of scientists is clearly wrong.
A & ~A are both correct is well "implausible"
Which one of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?
(A) A general statement is argued to be false by showing that it has deliberately been formulated to mislead.
"deliberately been formulated to mislead" is too strong.
(B) A statement is argued to be false by showing that taking it to be true leads to implausible consequences.
Good this seems to fit with our analysis - so I will reserve this.
(C) A statement is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true.
Here the attempt is to show neither statment A nor statement ~A as wrong. But to show both cannot coexist leading to conflict.
(D) A general statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that there are as many specific instances in which it is false as there are instances in which it is true.
Attempt here is not to give "information" hence ruled out.
(E) A statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that it supports no independently testable inferences.
Attempt here is not to give "information" hence ruled out.
So Answer is B.
2 Twenty years ago the Republic of Rosinia produced nearly 100 million tons of potatoes, but last year the harvest barely reached 60 million tons. Agricultural researchers, who have failed to develop new higher yielding strains of potatoes, are to blame for this decrease, since they have been concerned only with their own research and not with the needs of Rosinia.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Argument = Rosinia's potato production is decreasing because of scientists doing "their" own research and failing to find a new high yield potato.
Premise = 20 years ago 100mil and this year 60mil
So essentially I am looking for any statement that will prove that the scientists are indeed not doing anything to find the higher yielding potato strain and are busy doing something else.
(A) Any current attempts by agricultural researchers to develop higher-yielding potato strains are futile.
Current attempt is not being debated but the attempt till atleast last year (so it could have shown in the yield last year)
(B) Strains of potatoes most commonly grown in Rosinia could not have produced the yields last year that they once did.
Hits the nail on the head. I am going to reserve this.
(C) Agricultural researchers often find concrete solutions to practical problems when investigating seemingly unrelated questions.
It tells us about the method of research but nothing even about potatoes so clearly wrong.
(D) Wide fluctuations in the size of the potato crop over a twenty-year period are not unusual.
Looks good at the face of it - atleast logical. But if you think this statement is trying to find a flaw in the premise - as a golden rule never try to argue with the premise you will never win. So this is ruled out.
(E) Agricultural research in Rosinia is funded by government grants.
So? Irrelevant.
Hence, the answer is B here also
Arun
Out of scope!
Hey,
Can someone pls explain this .... :confused:
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writers argument?
The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writers argument?
The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
Is the answer last option, though it sounds like strengthening the argument. I think since may be before 1930 the time for apprenticeship was long as a result quality work was there...but after 1930 since it is reduced...we dont see that much quality.
Well the OA for this is D....can someone pls explain??
hey....can someone pls explain the prev problem....and the one below as well
1)The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.
hey....can someone pls explain the prev problem....and the one below as well
1)The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.
The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
ans is C?
Everyone,
Instead of blindly posting just the question can you please take an effort to atleast point out what is the confusion or what your analysis has been. If it is an effort just to quiz others then I am sorry and will not answer any such posts.
Arun
Everyone,
Instead of blindly posting just the question can you please take an effort to atleast point out what is the confusion or what your analysis has been. If it is an effort just to quiz others then I am sorry and will not answer any such posts.
Arun
Dude! u hv takn me wrong i just want to get MGMAT full length test papers so that certainly doesnt mean that i m lookin fr ny illegally material i want 2 purchase thm bcz i hv heard a lot abt it,tht's it.
thnx,bt no thnx!
In guidewriter ques,
The last option strengthen the arg rather than weaken it.
In my opinion,option 1 is correct as the carpentry in hotels only does not indicate the quality and skill of carpentry.
2 option is irrelevant as capacity of hotrls is not in ques
3 strengthens the arg
what say puys?
hey...the only reason why i posted the questions was because i was not able to come up with any analysis and needed some help.
the intention was definitely not to quiz others.
so if someone provide an explanation, it would be really helpful
thanks
Hey,
Can someone pls explain this .... :confused:
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writers argument?
The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
The answer is Option D because, after 1930 most of bad building's must have been demolished or went out of use, so only the good Hotel's remain and guidebook writer is making his argument based on the existing good buildings.
@ Psychodementia & geetsood
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Scientists are sometimes said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case. Now suppose the question arises whether a given food additive is safe. At that point, it would be neither known to be safe nor known not to be safe. By the characterization above, scientists would assume the additive not to be safe because it has not been proven safe. But they would also assume it to be safe because it has not been proven otherwise. But no scientist could assume without contradiction that a given substance is both safe and not safe: so this characterization of scientists is clearly wrong.
Which one of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?
(A) A general statement is argued to be false by showing that it has deliberately been formulated to mislead.
(B) A statement is argued to be false by showing that taking it to be true leads to implausible consequences.
(C) A statement is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true.
ďźˆB(D) A general statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that there are as many specific instances in which it is false as there are instances in which it is true.
(E) A statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that it supports no independently testable inferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think for passage 1, C should be the correct choice. B talks about "implausible consequences" where such consequences are not mentioned in the passage.
@ Psychodementia & geetsood
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Scientists are sometimes said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case. Now suppose the question arises whether a given food additive is safe. At that point, it would be neither known to be safe nor known not to be safe. By the characterization above, scientists would assume the additive not to be safe because it has not been proven safe. But they would also assume it to be safe because it has not been proven otherwise. But no scientist could assume without contradiction that a given substance is both safe and not safe: so this characterization of scientists is clearly wrong.
Which one of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?
(A) A general statement is argued to be false by showing that it has deliberately been formulated to mislead.
(B) A statement is argued to be false by showing that taking it to be true leads to implausible consequences.
(C) A statement is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true.
ďźˆB(D) A general statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that there are as many specific instances in which it is false as there are instances in which it is true.
(E) A statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that it supports no independently testable inferences.
The answer should be 'C'.
My reasoning:
[Take *A => 'Not A']
The premise says "*A when there's no proof of A". But doesn't say "A when no proof of *A".
The latter is assumed in the example and is wrong.
Correct me if i'm wrong!
Purnima.
The answer should be 'C'.
My reasoning:
The premise says "*A when there's no proof of A". But doesn't say "A when no proof of *A".
The latter is assumed in the example and is wrong.
Correct me if i'm wrong!
Purnima.
Your answer also seems logical. This is a good question. Anybody has the OA?
Arun
The answer should be 'C'.
My reasoning:
The premise says "*A when there's no proof of A". But doesn't say "A when no proof of *A".
The latter is assumed in the example and is wrong.
Correct me if i'm wrong!
Purnima.
Here question is " technique of reasoning".
The author says additive is not safe because it has not been prooven safe, and then also states that it is safe because it hasnt been prooven safe, and using this he criticizes scientists, because there is ambiguity in coming to conclusion.
Now if we see the options...
Option (b) fits in the picture as it is shows some ambiguity, we cannot decide true or false.
Option (c) A statement is shown to be false(means orginally we take the statement to be true) by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true. So the two statements are reasoned on the basis of both of them being true.
Not sure whether my reasoning is correct though.
Here question is " technique of reasoning".
The author says additive is not safe because it has not been prooven safe, and then also states that it is safe because it hasnt been prooven safe, and using this he criticizes scientists, because there is ambiguity in coming to conclusion.
Now if we see the options...
Option (b) fits in the picture as it is shows some ambiguity, we cannot decide true or false.
Option (c) A statement is shown to be false(means orginally we take the statement to be true) by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true. So the two statements are reasoned on the basis of both of them being true.
Not sure whether my reasoning is correct though.
Passage:
scientists would assume the additive not to be safe because it has not been proven safe. But they would also assume it to be safe because it has not been proven otherwise.
Interpretation:
It is NOT SAFE if it is proven UNSAFE
It IS SAFE if it is NOT proven UNSAFE
I believe the above is the logic
---------------------------------------------------------------
@SUPERNUT's stmt
"and then also states that it is safe because it hasnt been prooven safe, "
I think the above logic in misinterpreted. because the statement in the passage says it is SAFE if it is NOT proven OTHERWISE (otherwise= unsafe).
cn nybdy explain me ???
1)At the beginning of each month, companies report to the federal government their net loss or gain in jobs over the past month. These reports are then consolidated by the government and reported as the total gain or loss for the past month. Despite accurate reporting by companies and correct tallying by the government, the number of jobs lost was significantly underestimated in the recent recession.
Which one of the following, if true, contributes most to a resolution of the apparent discrepancy described?
(A) More jobs are lost in a recession than in a period of growth.
(B) The expenses of collecting and reporting employment data have steadily increased.
(C) Many people who lose their jobs start up their own businesses.
(D) In the recent recession a large number of failing companies abruptly ceased all operations.（D）
(E) The recent recession contributed to the growing preponderance of service jobs over manufacturing jobs.
2). Some of the worlds most beautiful cats are Persian cats. However, it must be acknowledged that all Persian cats are pompous, and pompous cats are invariably irritating.
If the statements above are true, each of the following must also be true on the basis of them EXCEPT:
(A) Some of the worlds most beautiful cats are irritating.
(B) Some irritating cats are among the worlds most beautiful cats.
(C) Any cat that is not irritating is not a Persian cat.
(D) Some pompous cats are among the worlds most beautiful cats.（E）
(E) Some irritating and beautiful cats are not Persian cats
@ Geetsood.
Pl. give OA in spoilers
@ Geetsood.
Pl. give OA in spoilers
dude didnt get u..