nuttyvarun SaysYeah.. that's correct.. Transfusions of any but type O blood necessitates prior typing of the recipients blood. :cheerio:
The answer should be B
The answer should be B
The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract advertising expenses from their revenues in calculating taxable income. Tobacco companies would then have to pay more taxes. As a consequence, they would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would discourage tobacco use.
Which of the following is an additional premise required by the argument above?
(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.
(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.
(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies' taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use.ďźˆA
(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.
I am confused between choice A and C. Can someone explain.!
The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract advertising expenses from their revenues in calculating taxable income. IMPLIES Tobacco companies would then have to pay more taxes.
As a consequence, they would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would discourage tobacco use. IMPLIES, No other means to save/make money for tobacco companies.
What should be added to the passage to make this highlighted conclusion sound sensible.. make this consequence look reasonable.. i.e. Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
Answer should be option A
The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract advertising expenses from their revenues in calculating taxable income. Tobacco companies would then have to pay more taxes. As a consequence, they would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would discourage tobacco use.
Which of the following is an additional premise required by the argument above?
(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.
(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.
(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use.ďźˆA
(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.
I am confused between choice A and C. Can someone explain.!
A) This will strengthen the argument that the price of the tobacco products will increase and the tobacco companies will not nullify the effect of increase in price of tobacco products because of inclusion of advertising cost in taxable income.
B) This weakens the argument. If tobacco companies stop advertising, the price of tobacco products will not be increased. People will not be discouraged to use tobacco products.
C) This is wrong reasoning as per the context set by paragraph. People would not buy tobacco products if the prices soar nor for the reason of non-advertisement.
D) The argument in the para is about how to discourage usage of tobacco products and not on how to use the money extracted by the govt.
E) This statement doest support the argument in any way.
B) This weakens the argument. If tobacco companies stop advertising, the price of tobacco products will not be increased. People will not be discouraged to use tobacco products.
C) This is wrong reasoning as per the context set by paragraph. People would not buy tobacco products if the prices soar nor for the reason of non-advertisement.
D) The argument in the para is about how to discourage usage of tobacco products and not on how to use the money extracted by the govt.
E) This statement doest support the argument in any way.
Another one from my records
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.
Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?
a. Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
b. Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater
d. Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
e. Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater.
Another one from my records
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.
Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?
a. Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
b. Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater
d. Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
e. Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater.
Straight away C
I feel the same..The conclusion focuses on the cost of extraction of uranium from under sea..this implies there's no dependency of this requirement on the current mining method of extraction...
similarly B again deals with availability & not afford ability..same point is again harped on by D..E wrong comparison..
so one can easily conclude it as C...
guy with guts SaysStraight away C
I feel the same..The conclusion focuses on the cost of extraction of uranium from under sea..this implies there's no dependency of this requirement on the current mining method of extraction...
similarly B again deals with availability & not afford ability..same point is again harped on by D..E wrong comparison..
so one can easily conclude it as C...
Guys think again, C is not the OA....
star_highway SaysGuys think again, C is not the OA....
I feel the same..The conclusion focuses on the cost of extraction of uranium from under sea..this implies there's no dependency of this requirement on the current mining method of extraction...
similarly B again deals with availability & not afford ability..same point is again harped on by D..E wrong comparison..
so one can easily conclude it as C...
guy with guts SaysStraight away C
Another one from my records
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.
Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?
a. Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
b. Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater
d. Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
e. Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater.
Can you please post the source of the question...
may be the OA is wrong.
Only C makes the most logical sense.
if not, then dude u ought to post the explanation for the OA for everyone.
Can you please post the source of the question...
may be the OA is wrong.
Only C makes the most logical sense.
if not, then dude u ought to post the explanation for the OA for everyone.
the right answer is A, let me explain,
a. Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
the deposit on land is getting reduced, so to fulfill the demand we may have to extract it from Seawater irrespective of its cost is more than current market price, So our conclusion "until the cost is reduced, the extraction wont be commercially viable" goes for a toss
b. Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
not relevant
c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater
At first this looks like the right answer, but wait... Please note that we dont have to verify that the cost of extracting Uranium from sea water goes down OR not.... We have to see that unless it goes down, we'll use it as commercially or not... there may be technological advances but the conclusion is based on the situation "until" those inventions... the keyword here is UNTIL ... infact option C is just an extension of the Premise that "yes a solution is possible" and the when the conclusion says "until" the solution is possible, it assumes option C.... so its not the most useful information to evaluate the argument.
d. Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
Doesn't help either, what if total amount on land is already sufficient to fulfill the demand .... why would one want to look at seawater...
e. Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater.
not relevant...
for more clarification between C and A ... consider this..
Argument : I wont buy this product until the price goes down
A : my inventory is depleting fast
C : Guys are working to reduce the price
in case of C, my response will be "OK good to know" but that wont change my conclusion
In case of A, I'll have to but the product at existing prices ....
Clearly A wins ....
star highway
That was very elaborative..
But in your first statement..in A.. our deposit of land is getting depleted..this is an assumption, i suppose as this is not stated anywhere..the only the rest of the evidence in support of it is valid and carries forward..
I am thinking from business point of view..which option of extraction is better..
Yes, the author's stress on " Therefore, until the cost....." but does not still clear in which direction it points..I am just arguing..
what do u say..
the right answer is A, let me explain,
a. Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
the deposit on land is getting reduced, so to fulfill the demand we may have to extract it from Seawater irrespective of its cost is more than current market price, So our conclusion "until the cost is reduced, the extraction wont be commercially viable" goes for a toss
b. Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
not relevant
c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater
At first this looks like the right answer, but wait... Please note that we dont have to verify that the cost of extracting Uranium from sea water goes down OR not.... We have to see that unless it goes down, we'll use it as commercially or not... there may be technological advances but the conclusion is based on the situation "until" those inventions... the keyword here is UNTIL ... infact option C is just an extension of the Premise that "yes a solution is possible" and the when the conclusion says "until" the solution is possible, it assumes option C.... so its not the most useful information to evaluate the argument.
d. Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
Doesn't help either, what if total amount on land is already sufficient to fulfill the demand .... why would one want to look at seawater...
e. Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater.
not relevant...
for more clarification between C and A ... consider this..
Argument : I wont buy this product until the price goes down
A : my inventory is depleting fast
C : Guys are working to reduce the price
in case of C, my response will be "OK good to know" but that wont change my conclusion
In case of A, I'll have to but the product at existing prices ....
Clearly A wins ....
after reading it twice... I understood the explanation...
but yet not convinced fully...
star highway
That was very elaborative..
But in your first statement..in A.. our deposit of land is getting depleted..this is an assumption, i suppose as this is not stated anywhere..the only the rest of the evidence in support of it is valid and carries forward..
I am thinking from business point of view..which option of extraction is better..
Yes, the author's stress on " Therefore, until the cost....." but does not still clear in which direction it points..I am just arguing..
what do u say..
the question asks that what additional information is "most useful" to evaluate the argument
Option C points that in future, extracting Uranium from Sea may become economical viable, but that does not change change the argument... "Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable. "
If i change the question to something like
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, when the cost of extracting uranium from seawater is reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is likely to be commercially viable.
The argument rests on which of the following assumption.
a. the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
b. most uranium is used near where it is mined
c. there are few technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater
d. the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
e. uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater.
Now C will be a better answer....
after reading it twice... I understood the explanation...
but yet not convinced fully...
See if these guys can convince you
world's supply of uranium - TestMagic Forums
Most of the world's supply of uranium € Manhattan GMAT Forums
Another one
There is no point in spending millions of dollars on security arrangements to protect the President from assassination. It would be impossible to shield any public official from all contact with the outside world 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Therefore, a determined assassin will always be able to find some opportunity to attack the President.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?
A) Reducing the number of opportunities for an attack on the President will discourage most assassins and improve the President's chances for survival.
B) By discouraging attacks on the President, the security arrangements surrounding him also protect the lives of bystanders who might be hurt in an assassination attempt.
C) Most individuals who attempt to take the life of a political leader are mentally unstable and unable to make rational judgments about their actions.
D) It is part of American tradition that political leaders make themselves available to the general public on a regular basis.
E) The cost of an assassination attempt would be prohibitively high for most people.
Another one
There is no point in spending millions of dollars on security arrangements to protect the President from assassination. It would be impossible to shield any public official from all contact with the outside world 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Therefore, a determined assassin will always be able to find some opportunity to attack the President.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?
A) Reducing the number of opportunities for an attack on the President will discourage most assassins and improve the President's chances for survival.
B) By discouraging attacks on the President, the security arrangements surrounding him also protect the lives of bystanders who might be hurt in an assassination attempt.
C) Most individuals who attempt to take the life of a political leader are mentally unstable and unable to make rational judgments about their actions.
D) It is part of American tradition that political leaders make themselves available to the general public on a regular basis.
E) The cost of an assassination attempt would be prohibitively high for most people.
A) Reducing the number of opportunities for an attack on the President will discourage most assassins and improve the President's chances for survival.
>> Close one. This gives justification how assassins can be discourged which improves achances of President surviving the attack.
B) By discouraging attacks on the President, the security arrangements surrounding him also protect the lives of bystanders who might be hurt in an assassination attempt.
>> Not related directly to passage.
C) Most individuals who attempt to take the life of a political leader are mentally unstable and unable to make rational judgments about their actions.
>> This is a good choice. This is basically trying to say that the assassin can be caught/trapped by security folks by playing against his temprament and making him commit mistake. So it pays off to spend money on security.
D) It is part of American tradition that political leaders make themselves available to the general public on a regular basis.
>> Yeah right.. that's why JFK was killed in the broad daylight.. no offences meant, but this is not weakening the passage.
E) The cost of an assassination attempt would be prohibitively high for most people.
>> Not if the person on the recieving end is Mr.Bush. That would save a lot of tax payers' money..ha haa..
just kidding.. but not a good option to choose.So I would be confused betwen option A dn option C.
In the end I would ave marked option C
Most individuals who attempt to take the life of a political leader are mentally unstable and unable to make rational judgments about their actions.
what is the OA..??..
A) Reducing the number of opportunities for an attack on the President will discourage most assassins and improve the President's chances for survival.
>> Close one. This gives justification how assassins can be discourged which improves achances of President surviving the attack.
B) By discouraging attacks on the President, the security arrangements surrounding him also protect the lives of bystanders who might be hurt in an assassination attempt.
>> Not related directly to passage.
C) Most individuals who attempt to take the life of a political leader are mentally unstable and unable to make rational judgments about their actions.
>> This is a good choice. This is basically trying to say that the assassin can be caught/trapped by security folks by playing against his temprament and making him commit mistake. So it pays off to spend money on security.
D) It is part of American tradition that political leaders make themselves available to the general public on a regular basis.
>> Yeah right.. that's why JFK was killed in the broad daylight.. no offences meant, but this is not weakening the passage.
E) The cost of an assassination attempt would be prohibitively high for most people.
>> Not if the person on the recieving end is Mr.Bush. That would save a lot of tax payers' money..ha haa..just kidding.. but not a good option to choose.
So I would be confused betwen option A dn option C.
In the end I would ave marked option C
Most individuals who attempt to take the life of a political leader are mentally unstable and unable to make rational judgments about their actions.
what is the OA..??..
you were close... the answer is A, here is more explanation
Conclusion:
There is no point in spending money to protect the president.
We have to find something that weakens it. We can look it it this way
Alternate Conclusion: There is a point in spending money to protect the president.
Now we have to find something that supports this. The important point here is "protect the president". A Clearly points that due to massive security arrangements, most would be attackers will be discouraged.
In case of C, we have to go beyond the given information and also assume that "being mentally unstable" means making mistakes. It may happen that mentally unstable person may launch a suicide attack irrespective of security. So its sort of supporting the conclusion that there is no point is spending money.
In case of C, we have to go beyond the given information and also assume that "being mentally unstable" means making mistakes. It may happen that mentally unstable person may launch a suicide attack irrespective of security. So its sort of supporting the conclusion that there is no point is spending money.
"...a determined assassin will always be able to find some opportunity to attack the President.."
I think this is where I slipped away.. I was trying to connect the option C with this determined word..
The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.
From which of the following statements can the statement above be properly inferred?
A. The Kuwaiti fires' ecological impact was more limited than had been expected. The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at first, and its baleful effects continue to outstrip most predictions.
B. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, though serious enough in ecological terms, have not had any widespread impact on the global ecology.
C. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires involved the combustion of no carcinogenic materials. The Chernobyl accident released radio-active debris which has an extremely long half-life and are carcinogenic.
D. The effects of the Chernobyl accident will be felt in the world for thousands of years to come, while most of the ecological damage done by the Kuwaiti oil-well fires has already been pretty well dissipated.
E. The dire predictions of ecological catastrophe which were made about the fires in the Kuwaiti oil-fields have not been borne out in the subsequent course of events.
My answer was C whereas the exam says A. Any idea who is wrong and why?
The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.
From which of the following statements can the statement above be properly inferred?
A. The Kuwaiti fires' ecological impact was more limited than had been expected. The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at first, and its baleful effects continue to outstrip most predictions.
B. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, though serious enough in ecological terms, have not had any widespread impact on the global ecology.
C. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires involved the combustion of no carcinogenic materials. The Chernobyl accident released radio-active debris which has an extremely long half-life and are carcinogenic.
D. The effects of the Chernobyl accident will be felt in the world for thousands of years to come, while most of the ecological damage done by the Kuwaiti oil-well fires has already been pretty well dissipated.
E. The dire predictions of ecological catastrophe which were made about the fires in the Kuwaiti oil-fields have not been borne out in the subsequent course of events.
My answer was C whereas the exam says A. Any idea who is wrong and why?
The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.
Query: Passage can be inferred form which of the options provided.
Clue: It should confirm that Kuwait's disaster didn't turn out to be a great deal of a thing when compared to the aftermaths of Chernobyl.
A. The Kuwaiti fires' ecological impact was more limited than had been expected. The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at first, and its baleful effects continue to outstrip most predictions.
>> Kuwait did not meet the expected levels of impact, whereas Chernobyl exceeded the expected levels and continue to grow in negative impact. expected levels reference can be found in the passage.
C. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires involved the combustion of no carcinogenic materials. The Chernobyl accident released radio-active debris which has an extremely long half-life and are carcinogenic.
>> carcinogens or no carcinogens... the comparison is not between the impacting entities. Wrong Choice!!
D. The effects of the Chernobyl accident will be felt in the world for thousands of years to come, while most of the ecological damage done by the Kuwaiti oil-well fires has already been pretty well dissipated.
>> This says that Chernobyl's impact on ecology is far from over.. but Kuwait's harmful outcomes are almost over.
I would have marked option D. However it's incorrect.
Read the highlighted section in the passage again;
The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.
So I believe OA is correct. The answer should be option A only. Good one though!!