aim-wsc Sayswell, yes that is the correct answer and correct approach.
Hi aim-wsc,
can u explain why C is the correct option? why not A,B or E?
-Vidya
Hi aim-wsc,
can u explain why C is the correct option? why not A,B or E?
-Vidya
Can anyone explain this:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
If C, then D.
If all of the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true?
(A) If D, then A.
(B) If not B, then not C.
(C) If not D, then not A.
(D) If D, then E.
(E) If not A, then not D.
The ans is C : how? why not A,B or E
Can anyone explain this:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
If C, then D.
If all of the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true?
(A) If D, then A.
(B) If not B, then not C.
(C) If not D, then not A.
(D) If D, then E.
(E) If not A, then not D.
The ans is C : how? why not A,B or E
For any "If" statement (which is called a proposition), the contrapositive always holds good. Take a look at this link:
contrapositive - Wiktionary
After understanding the concept, come back to the question and check the answer choices
can you explain why b) cannot be the answer?
Thanks!!
For any "If" statement (which is called a proposition), the contrapositive always holds good. Take a look at this link:
contrapositive - Wiktionary
After understanding the concept, come back to the question and check the answer choices
can you explain why b) cannot be the answer?
Thanks!!
(B) If not B, then not C.
Understand here what is being said. If B is not there, then the choice says "for sure C" won't be there.
BUT, we have the statement as If B, then C.
Which means If B is there, C will sure be there. But if B is not there, we cannot say whether C will be there or not. Its ambiguous.
Hope this helps.
For any "If" statement (which is called a proposition), the contrapositive always holds good. Take a look at this link:
contrapositive - Wiktionary
After understanding the concept, come back to the question and check the answer choices
Thanks! that really helped. in such cases of propositions, any idea why inverse & converse dont hold good.They do look logical to me.
Wow.
I did not know that.Thnks
Lemme try and explain in a simple way.
If clouds(A) then Rain(B)
If Rain(B) Children Play(C)
If Children Play(C) Aunt polly scolds(D)
Does it seem fine that, "if Rain is not there, children wont play? "
NO.
Children may play because of other reasons.
Vidya Jayram SaysThanks! that really helped. in such cases of propositions, any idea why inverse & converse dont hold good.They do look logical to me.
It doesn't mean inverse and converse "don't hold good", but it just means they "don't neccessarily hold good".
Example:
If I goto the market, I'll buy vegetables.
Inverse: "If I don't goto the market, I won't buy vegetables" - not necessarily, I could've bought the vegetables from a roadside vendor.
Converse: "If I buy vegetables, I went to the market" - not necessarily, I could've bought the vegetables from a roadside vendor.
Contrapositive: "If I didn't buy vegetables, I didn't goto the market" - that's true, isn't it??
let me know if you need further clarifications...
IMO C, if A implies B then not B implies not A
195.
a proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.
the argument above assumes which of the following?
(a) without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.
(b) money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.
(c) the primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes.
(d) wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.
(e) income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income
imo a.........
195.
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.
IMO A. Whats the OA?
Can anyone explain this:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
If C, then D.
If all of the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true?
(A) If D, then A.
(B) If not B, then not C.
(C) If not D, then not A.
(D) If D, then E.
(E) If not A, then not D.
The ans is C : how? why not A,B or E
ans wud be c
it can't be A
AS statement has said a=c and if c then c=d
but not d=c and therefore not d=a
rest too on the same lines
There are far fewer children available for adoption than there are people who want to adopt. Two million couples are currently waiting to adopt, but in 1982, the last year for which figures exist, there were only some 50,000 adoptions.
Which of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the author's claim that there are far fewer children available for adoption than there are people who want to adopt?
(A) The number of couples waiting to adopt has increased significantly in the last decade.
(B) The number of adoptions in the current year is greater than the number of adoptions in any preceding year.
(C) The number of adoptions in a year is approximately equal to the number of children available for adoption in that period.
(D) People who seek to adopt children often go through a long process of interviews and investigation by adoption agencies.
(E) People who seek to adopt children generally make very good parents.
please give explanation of answer...
There are far fewer children available for adoption than there are people who want to adopt. Two million couples are currently waiting to adopt, but in 1982, the last year for which figures exist, there were only some 50,000 adoptions.
Which of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the author's claim that there are far fewer children available for adoption than there are people who want to adopt?
(A) The number of couples waiting to adopt has increased significantly in the last decade.
(B) The number of adoptions in the current year is greater than the number of adoptions in any preceding year.
(C) The number of adoptions in a year is approximately equal to the number of children available for adoption in that period.
(D) People who seek to adopt children often go through a long process of interviews and investigation by adoption agencies.
(E) People who seek to adopt children generally make very good parents.
please give explanation of answer...
option a is the ans
There are far fewer children available for adoption than there are people who want to adopt. Two million couples are currently waiting to adopt, but in 1982, the last year for which figures exist, there were only some 50,000 adoptions.
Which of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the author's claim that there are far fewer children available for adoption than there are people who want to adopt?
(A) The number of couples waiting to adopt has increased significantly in the last decade.
(B) The number of adoptions in the current year is greater than the number of adoptions in any preceding year.
(C) The number of adoptions in a year is approximately equal to the number of children available for adoption in that period.
(D) People who seek to adopt children often go through a long process of interviews and investigation by adoption agencies.
(E) People who seek to adopt children generally make very good parents.
please give explanation of answer...
option E is out ,as it is not to the context
in the same way option D,do not convey any thing abt the nos so its out
even though option A is relevant ,it do not give any idea about the no of children available
so i feel option C will best augment the authors claim
option E is out ,as it is not to the context
in the same way option D,do not convey any thing abt the nos so its out
even though option A is relevant ,it do not give any idea about the no of children available
so i feel option C will best augment the authors claim
u r right. Option C is the best. Option A looks very close, but it doesnt convey anything on no of children available. (C) is the best answer because it is stating that virtually all kids available for adoption are adopted each year. So either there is an equal amount of couples seeking to adopt a child as there are children to adopt, OR (more likely) there are more couples seeking children to adopt than there are children available.
keep working guys!!
option E is out ,as it is not to the context
in the same way option D,do not convey any thing abt the nos so its out
even though option A is relevant ,it do not give any idea about the no of children available
so i feel option C will best augment the authors claim
while writing option a i also felt the same thing..
the option wud have been appropriate if it was-couples taking adoption increase is greater thn the children increase.
Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars so that each one delivers a specified amount of caffeine. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.
Candy manufacturer: Our manufacturing process results in there being les caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.
The candy manufacturer's response is flawed as a refutation of the consumer health advocate's argument because it
(A) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the manufacture is enough to keep people addicted
(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine
(C) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process
(D) treats the consumer heal advocate's argument as though it were about each candy bar rather than about the manufacturer's candy in general
(E) merely contradicts the consumer health advocate's conclusion without giving any reason to believe that the advocate's reasoning is unsound
Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars so that each one delivers a specified amount of caffeine. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.
Candy manufacturer: Our manufacturing process results in there being les caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.
The candy manufacturers response is flawed as a refutation of the consumer health advocates argument because it
(A) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the manufacture is enough to keep people addicted
(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine
(C) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process
(D) treats the consumer heal advocates argument as though it were about each candy bar rather than about the manufacturers candy in general
(E) merely contradicts the consumer health advocates conclusion without giving any reason to believe that the advocates reasoning is unsound
IMO A.
Reason-:- The candy manufacturer argues that the level of caffeine is less in each candy bar as compared to unprocessed cacao beans. But the Question here is that whether that less caffeine is enough to cause an addition? i feel the candy manufacturer's argument is weak here.
Please post the OA with Official explanation.