Are you still reading the other newspaper in town? Did you know that the Daily Bugle is owned by an out-of-town business syndicate that couldn't care less about the people of Gotham City? Read the Daily Clarion, the only real voice of the people of Gotham City!
Which of the following most directly refutes the argument raised in the advertisement above?
(A) Over half of the advertising revenues of the Daily Clarion come from firms whose headquarters are located outside of Gotham City.
(B) The Daily Clarion usually devotes more of its pages to out-of-town news than does the Daily Bugle.
(C) Nearly 40 percent of the readers of the Daily Clarion reside outside the limits of Gotham City.
(D) The editor-in-chief and all the other members of the editorial staff of the Daily Bugle have lived and worked in Gotham City for ten years or more.
(E) The Daily Bugle has been published in Gotham City for a longer time than has the Daily Clarion.
Are you still reading the other newspaper in town? Did you know that the Daily Bugle is owned by an out-of-town business syndicate that couldnt care less about the people of Gotham City? Read the Daily Clarion, the only real voice of the people of Gotham City!
Which of the following most directly refutes the argument raised in the advertisement above?
(A) Over half of the advertising revenues of the Daily Clarion come from firms whose headquarters are located outside of Gotham City.
(B) The Daily Clarion usually devotes more of its pages to out-of-town news than does the Daily Bugle.
(C) Nearly 40 percent of the readers of the Daily Clarion reside outside the limits of Gotham City.
(D) The editor-in-chief and all the other members of the editorial staff of the Daily Bugle have lived and worked in Gotham City for ten years or more.
(E) The Daily Bugle has been published in Gotham City for a longer time than has the Daily Clarion.
D sounds nice, doesn't it?
Are you still reading the other newspaper in town? Did you know that the Daily Bugle is owned by an out-of-town business syndicate that couldnt care less about the people of Gotham City? Read the Daily Clarion, the only real voice of the people of Gotham City!
Which of the following most directly refutes the argument raised in the advertisement above?
(A) Over half of the advertising revenues of the Daily Clarion come from firms whose headquarters are located outside of Gotham City.
(B) The Daily Clarion usually devotes more of its pages to out-of-town news than does the Daily Bugle.
(C) Nearly 40 percent of the readers of the Daily Clarion reside outside the limits of Gotham City.
(D) The editor-in-chief and all the other members of the editorial staff of the Daily Bugle have lived and worked in Gotham City for ten years or more.
(E) The Daily Bugle has been published in Gotham City for a longer time than has the Daily Clarion.
Main argument in the passage..
Did you know that the Daily Bugle is owned by an out-of-town business syndicate that couldnt care less about the people of Gotham City
Now what refutes the statement above;
Proof that the Daily Bugle owners DO care about the people of Gotham City.
i.e.The editor-in-chief and all the other members of the editorial staff of the Daily Bugle have lived and worked in Gotham City for ten years or more.
My answer: D
vikas.mogle SaysD sounds nice, doesn't it?
Yes D it is...
Main argument in the passage..
Did you know that the Daily Bugle is owned by an out-of-town business syndicate that couldnt care less about the people of Gotham City
Now what refutes the statement above;
Proof that the Daily Bugle owners DO care about the people of Gotham City.
i.e.The editor-in-chief and all the other members of the editorial staff of the Daily Bugle have lived and worked in Gotham City for ten years or more.
My answer: D
Your answer is right .
My 2 cents:
The single biggest factor which would turn the argument on its head will be some proof that it isnt exactly run by out-of-towners ( it may be owned by outsiders but it is not run by them ). D does that exactly.
As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one of the nation's most powerful labor unions, Grayson is an excellent choice to chair the new council on business-labor relations.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?
(A) The new council must have the support of the nation's labor leaders if it is to succeed.
(B) During his years as a labor leader, Grayson established a record of good relations with business leaders.
(C) The chair of the new council must be a person who can communicate directly with the leaders of the nation's largest labor unions.
(D) Most of the other members of the new council will be representatives of business management interests.
(E) An understanding of the needs and problems of labor is the only qualification necessary for the job of chairing the new council.
I can comprehend that E is the best answer but dont B and C also strengthen the argument
one more
In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III.Most government workers are Civil Service employees.
(A) I only
(B) I and III only
(C) II only
(D) I, II, and III
(E) III only
Plzz post ur explanations also ...i know statement 1 is inferable ( sorry folks for the spoiler but i think thats a no brainer)
one more
In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III.Most government workers are Civil Service employees.
(A) I only
(B) I and III only
(C) II only
(D) I, II, and III
(E) III only
Plzz post ur explanations also ...i know statement 1 is inferable ( sorry folks for the spoiler but i think thats a no brainer)
I'd go with A, since II can't be inferred and author is only saying that government efficiency can be attributed, in large part, to civil servants. There's no mention of government workers. So, III can't be inferred.
As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one of the nations most powerful labor unions, Grayson is an excellent choice to chair the new council on business-labor relations.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?
(A) The new council must have the support of the nations labor leaders if it is to succeed.
(B) During his years as a labor leader, Grayson established a record of good relations with business leaders.
(C) The chair of the new council must be a person who can communicate directly with the leaders of the nations largest labor unions.
(D) Most of the other members of the new council will be representatives of business management interests.
(E) An understanding of the needs and problems of labor is the only qualification necessary for the job of chairing the new council.
I can comprehend that E is the best answer but dont B and C also strengthen the argument
Find an option that strengthens the conclusion, i.e. Grayson is an excellent choice to chair the new council on business-labor relations.
Option A - Not mentioned in the passage that Gary had gr8 relationship with labor's leaders. Ignore this.
Option B - Not mentioned that it is necassary to have good relationship with business leaders either. Ignore this.
Option C - This option mentions a mandatory thing in the new council leader, which is available in Gary, i.e. person who can communicate directly with the leaders of the nations largest labor unions. Possible Answer.
Option D - Incoherent option. Ignore this.
Option E - It mentions the one and only selection criteria.. in which the candidate must have great knowledge of labor problems and needs. Gary qualifies easily in that. Possible answer.
Since nothing is mentioned about Gary's communication skills in the passage.. I would go with option E as my answer. :
Any ambiguity?? And whats the right answer??
one more
In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.
(A) I only
(B) I and III only
(C) II only
(D) I, II, and III
(E) III only
Plzz post ur explanations also ...i know statement 1 is inferable ( sorry folks for the spoiler but i think thats a no brainer)
Author believes that _._._._._._
>> Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
Hitn provided in the lines "Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf". The civil servants are sure about job security and tend to take things easy. Negative impact!!
>> More government workers should be fired.
Not mentioned in passage.
>> Most government workers are Civil Service employees.
Hint given in the lines "This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient". The author points fingure on the entire govt, means he believes every govt employee is civil servant.
I would have marked option B.
What's the actual answer??
Somewhere, somehow, what was once a perfectly good rule by which to live was twisted into the false and sinister idea that "Money is the root of all evil." To the contrary, the proper use of money provides us with the food, clothes, health care, and shelter that we all need to sustain our lives.
The author's argument is logically flawed in that it
(A) uses examples that do not refute the generalization that all evil is rooted in money
(B) uses inappropriate examples to demonstrate the proper use of money
(C) ignores some of the evil things that money can buy
(D) fails to acknowledge that food, clothes, health care, and shelter can sometimes lead to evil
(E) fails to recognize that money can be used for a lot of other good things besides sustenance
The key word to notice in here is "proper".. >>To the contrary, the proper use of money provides us with the food, clothes, health care...
My answer is option C..
what's the right answer..??..
Author believes that _._._._._._
>> Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
Hitn provided in the lines "Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf". The civil servants are sure about job security and tend to take things easy. Negative impact!!
>> More government workers should be fired.
Not mentioned in passage.
>> Most government workers are Civil Service employees.
Hint given in the lines "This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient". The author points fingure on the entire govt, means he believes every govt employee is civil servant.
I would have marked option B.
What's the actual answer??
Government can also be inefficient in changing the policies related to the labor , so third cant be inferred.
A is the right one as pointed by Vikas Mogle
Somewhere, somehow, what was once a perfectly good rule by which to live was twisted into the false and sinister idea that Money is the root of all evil. To the contrary, the proper use of money provides us with the food, clothes, health care, and shelter that we all need to sustain our lives.
The authors argument is logically flawed in that it
(A) uses examples that do not refute the generalization that all evil is rooted in money
(B) uses inappropriate examples to demonstrate the proper use of money
(C) ignores some of the evil things that money can buy
(D) fails to acknowledge that food, clothes, health care, and shelter can sometimes lead to evil
(E) fails to recognize that money can be used for a lot of other good things besides sustenance
C. Money is the root of all evil but the counter argument mention the good things which money can buy.
Somewhere, somehow, what was once a perfectly good rule by which to live was twisted into the false and sinister idea that Money is the root of all evil. To the contrary, the proper use of money provides us with the food, clothes, health care, and shelter that we all need to sustain our lives.
The authors argument is logically flawed in that it
(A) uses examples that do not refute the generalization that all evil is rooted in money
(B) uses inappropriate examples to demonstrate the proper use of money
(C) ignores some of the evil things that money can buy
(D) fails to acknowledge that food, clothes, health care, and shelter can sometimes lead to evil
(E) fails to recognize that money can be used for a lot of other good things besides sustenance
I think A is the answer .The key is that its says evil-->money.
its does not refute all evil is comnig from money.
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases
Which option most seriously weakens the argument??
the argument is: "the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases"
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
So NOT dumping kachra in the middle of the ocean would help.. which weakens the author's argument.
My answer is option B!!
Which option most seriously weakens the argument??
the argument is: "the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases"
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
So NOT dumping kachra in the middle of the ocean would help.. which weakens the author's argument.
My answer is option B!!
I think B is out of scope. Industrial harbor is nowhere mentioned in the argument, ditto about open ocean. How does sewage rerouting turn a industrial harbor into open ocean? Doesn't make sense to me.
whereas E gives another reason to clear out the harbor, i.e. proposal is not pointless, because if steps are not taken to prevent lobsters from getting contracted, humans will get contracted thru' them.
E wins.
Somewhere, somehow, what was once a perfectly good rule by which to live was twisted into the false and sinister idea that Money is the root of all evil. To the contrary, the proper use of money provides us with the food, clothes, health care, and shelter that we all need to sustain our lives.
The authors argument is logically flawed in that it
(A) uses examples that do not refute the generalization that all evil is rooted in money
(B) uses inappropriate examples to demonstrate the proper use of money
(C) ignores some of the evil things that money can buy
(D) fails to acknowledge that food, clothes, health care, and shelter can sometimes lead to evil
(E) fails to recognize that money can be used for a lot of other good things besides sustenance
My ans is A.
Uses examples that donot prove statement is false. rather it talks abt proper use.
refute = prove that 'Money is the root of all evil' is false.
In c, the word evil is a trap. Money causes evil ,not buys
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases
my ans is B.
lobsters live longer in open sea than industrial harbors, which are polluted by industrial wastes or sewage.
In order to protect lobsters,the proposal is important, as per this statement
I think it is not abt humans contracting gill disease, its about , lobsters living long. ( they die soon when they contract gill disease and this as a food is not available for humans.)
eaten by humans .. is perhaps a trap