[montaqes]

Try this out guys ..

As a genre, hip-hop is vastly underrated. While critics are right to question the violent and sometimesracist content of many hip-hop lyrics, the genre as a wholeshould not be dismissed as worthless just because portions of its subgenre are potentially offensive or sub-par. The whole should never be judged by just one of its parts.

The bolded phrases play which of the following roles in the passage above?

a) The first phrase contains a premise supporting the author's conclusion, and second phrase contradicts that conclusion.
b) The first phrase is a reply to an argument, and the second phrase is the author's conclusion.
c) The first phrase is the author's conclusion, and the second phrase contains support for a premise.
d) The first phraseis an analogy supporting a premise, and second phrase is that premise.
e) The first phrase is an opinion, while the second phrase contains an related conclusion.

[ravi teja]

i thunk the answer is e

[rahul.datar]

i think the answer is B

[anish_goyal]

Originally Posted by montaqes

Try this out guys ..

As a genre, hip-hop is vastly underrated. While critics are right to question the violent and sometimesracist content of many hip-hop lyrics, the genre as a wholeshould not be dismissed as worthless just because portions of its subgenre are potentially offensive or sub-par. The whole should never be judged by just one of its parts.

The bolded phrases play which of the following roles in the passage above?

a) The first phrase contains a premise supporting the author's conclusion, and second phrase contradicts that conclusion.
b) The first phrase is a reply to an argument, and the second phrase is the author's conclusion.
c) The first phrase is the author's conclusion, and the second phrase contains support for a premise.
d) The first phraseis an analogy supporting a premise, and second phrase is that premise.
e) The first phrase is an opinion, while the second phrase contains an related conclusion.

I think (E) is better than (B).
Whats the OA?

[anish_goyal]

Hi! plz try this..

Community activist: If Morganville wants to keep its central shopping district healthy, it should prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount department store on the outskirts of Morganville. Records from other small towns show that whenever SaveAll has opened a store outside the central shopping district of a small town, within five years the town has experienced the bankruptcies of more than a quarter of the stores in the
shopping district.
The answer to which of the following would be most useful for evaluating the community activist’s reasoning?
A. Have community activists in other towns successfully campaigned against the opening of a SaveAll store on the outskirts of their towns?
B. Do a large percentage of the residents of Morganville currently do almost all of their shopping at stores in Morganville?
C. In towns with healthy central shopping districts, what proportion of the stores in those districts suffer bankruptcy during a typical five-year period?
D. What proportion of the employees at the SaveAll store on the outskirts of Morganville will be drawn form Morganville?
E. Do newly opened SaveAll stores ever lose money during their first five years of operation?




my pick is second option. OA given is different. so if u have some different choice, plz explain.

[montaqes]

Originally Posted by anish_goyal

Hi! plz try this..

Community activist: If Morganville wants to keep its central shopping district healthy, it should prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount department store on the outskirts of Morganville. Records from other small towns show that whenever SaveAll has opened a store outside the central shopping district of a small town, within five years the town has experienced the bankruptcies of more than a quarter of the stores in the
shopping district.
The answer to which of the following would be most useful for evaluating the community activist’s reasoning?
A. Have community activists in other towns successfully campaigned against the opening of a SaveAll store on the outskirts of their towns?
B. Do a large percentage of the residents of Morganville currently do almost all of their shopping at stores in Morganville?
C. In towns with healthy central shopping districts, what proportion of the stores in those districts suffer bankruptcy during a typical five-year period?
D. What proportion of the employees at the SaveAll store on the outskirts of Morganville will be drawn form Morganville?
E. Do newly opened SaveAll stores ever lose money during their first five years of operation?




my pick is second option. OA given is different. so if u have some different choice, plz explain.

Hi Anish,

I think, answer to this shud be (E).

Though option B appears to be a very plausible answer, it doesn't not attempt to evaluate the reasoning that if "central shopping district healthy, it should prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount ". local shopping district can remain healthy even with a small percentage of residents shoppping in its shops. we should only be concerned abt this small percentage of residents!

e) author reasons that SaveAll stores have always caused increased banckrupties in their first five years of operation. But what if the cause of those bankrupties was something else and not SaveAll store. Therefore, it is needed to know whether the SaveAll store also lost money in first five year of its operation or not. If it has also lost money in first five years than somethingels shud be the cause of bankrupties and the authors reasoning wud turned out to be flawed.

Let me know if i m right

[montaqes]

Originally Posted by anish_goyal

I think (E) is better than (B).
Whats the OA?

Anish, rahul, Ravi,

The OA for this is (C)....i also marked it as (E) but now i think (C) makes more sense :huh:....

Author said that hip-hop is highly underrated and than gave the reasons in support of this statement. He said that critics are right with respect to offensive language and comments but are wrong to UNDERRATE whole hip-hop genre by using some worthless subgenre hip-hop as a representative of whole hip-hop genre. Therefore, first BOLD phrase is indeed the author's conclusion.
And second phrase supports the premises that the author used to support her conclusion

[anish_goyal]

Originally Posted by montaqes

Hi Anish,

I think, answer to this shud be (E).

Though option B appears to be a very plausible answer, it doesn't not attempt to evaluate the reasoning that if "central shopping district healthy, it should prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount ". local shopping district can remain healthy even with a small percentage of residents shoppping in its shops. we should only be concerned abt this small percentage of residents!

e) author reasons that SaveAll stores have always caused increased banckrupties in their first five years of operation. But what if the cause of those bankrupties was something else and not SaveAll store. Therefore, it is needed to know whether the SaveAll store also lost money in first five year of its operation or not. If it has also lost money in first five years than somethingels shud be the cause of bankrupties and the authors reasoning wud turned out to be flawed.

Let me know if i m right

I think (E) also doesn't help evaluating the argument. Secondly, it is written that "wherever" SaveAll has opened a store...so it means there's no instance of it losing money.

But, just now it struck me that answer should be (C) bcoz the argument talks abt markets not healthy markets.
and that's the OA too

[anish_goyal]

Originally Posted by montaqes

Anish, rahul, Ravi,

The OA for this is (C)....i also marked it as (E) but now i think (C) makes more sense :huh:....

Author said that hip-hop is highly underrated and than gave the reasons in support of this statement. He said that critics are right with respect to offensive language and comments but are wrong to UNDERRATE whole hip-hop genre by using some worthless subgenre hip-hop as a representative of whole hip-hop genre. Therefore, first BOLD phrase is indeed the author's conclusion.
And second phrase supports the premises that the author used to support her conclusion

Montaques, if we say first statement is the conclusion then I think, it's wrong to say that author is using the 2nd bold statement as a premise to support that conclusion. Because it is actually against that conclusion.

[montaqes]

Originally Posted by anish_goyal

I think (E) also doesn't help evaluating the argument. Secondly, it is written that "wherever" SaveAll has opened a store...so it means there's no instance of it losing money.

But, just now it struck me that answer should be (C) bcoz the argument talks abt markets not healthy markets.
and that's the OA too

yup..u r right Anish...answer shud be (C) only.... where did u get this ques from...i think this is one of the most tricky questions i have come across...