Good questions. 1) My take is B. weakening this argument needs to find the flaw here. The flaw is that no matter how much quantity is eater and not paid for, it represents potential sales loss to non-employees, who eventually have to pay for it. 2) answer is A. Argument claims that children grow older and realize the necessity serious study( just like me... ;)). A states that students learn how to cheat without getting caught meaning they keep cheating irrespective of their growth.
3) My pick is E. really good question. many redherrings also. Inference for any argument is the minimum information which is 100% true based on the stimulus. C and D represents classic heart strings but both are wrong. C states some windows will not be properly cleaned, how can we state that based on stimulli? no evidence for that. D suggests overtime, why, owner can hire more workers to get the job done. E is the best.
4) my pick is B. Truckdriver`s claim is aginst increasing tax every year. and the (smart) official gives the reason for collecting tax and not increase in tax. so this makes argument circular, the truth that the tax collected will be used for road maintenance is used by official to give his conclusion. OAs awaited!! cheers!!
The extent 2 wich a society is really free can be gauged by its attitude toward artistic expression. Freedom of expression can easily be violated in even the most outwardly democratic of societies. When a government arts council withholds funding from a dance performance that its member fom a dance performance dat its members deem "obscene" , the voices of a few bureacrats have in fact censored the work of d choreographer, thereby committing d real obscenity of repression.
Which of d following, if true, wud most weaken d argument above?
1.. Members of government arts council r screened to ensure dat their belief reflects those of majority. 2.. d term obsenity has several different definationsdat shud nt be used interchangeably for rhetorical effect. 3.. Failing to provide financial support for a performance is not d same as actively preventing or inhibiting it. 4.. The council's decision could be reversed if the performance were altered to conform to public standards of appropriateness. 5.. The definition of obscenity is something on which most members of a society can agree.
please give ur reasons to choose a particular answer
option 3 hits the flaw in the above argument perfectly..
Oops!! u mean kaplan verbal workbook or 800? i have to check the explanation since i m not 100% convinced with OAs. Or just post the OE. thanks.
I'll let dare2 bro post the OEs. Here is what I used as a line of reasoning. Please feel free to attack it:
1. The candy manufacturer's claim that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated. Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who would not be willing to buy an entire box of it anyway.
Premise : Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who would not be willing to buy an entire box of it anyway Conclusion: employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated. The keyword here is potential sales.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above? (A) The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold. (B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to nonemployees. - So if this is true then although the employees eat one piece at a time but those candies collectively amount for the cadies that could have been potentially sold to the customers. Hence correct. (C) A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for. (D) Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest. (E) The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company
2. Children who attend private high schools may initially feel that they can succeed without doing the work required, but as they grow older they realize the necessity of serious study. Each year the overwhelming majority of students disciplined for plagiarism and cheating on their exams is found in the freshman class. Premise: Each year the overwhelming majority of students disciplined for plagiarism and cheating on their exams is found in the freshman class. Conclusion: Children who attend private high schools may initially feel that they can succeed without doing the work required, but as they grow older they realize the necessity of serious study. To weaken this argument we have to attack the conclusion and prove that the students DO succeed without the hardwork/serious study.
The argument above would be most weakened if which of the following were true? (A) As they move up in grade, students learn how to cheat without being caught. - If this is true then even though the students get caught they are not the ones who learn to cheat without getting caught. Implies some students go uncaught hence successful without serious study or hardwork. Hence this is correct. (B) First-time offenders for plagiarism and cheating on exams are not disciplined. (C) The proctors for freshman exams are the least vigilant. (D) Acts of vandalism are most often committed by members of the sophomore class. (E) Public school students are no less likely than private school students to believe that they can succeed in life without working hard.
3. It takes 4 weeks for a team of 5 professional window washers working regular full-time hours to properly clean every window of the Empire State Building. The building's owner demands that all the windows always be clean. Yet even if the 5 washers work consistently throughout their regular work week, they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning.
Premise 1 :It takes 4 weeks for a team of 5 professional window washers working regular full-time hours to properly clean every window of the Empire State Building. Premise 2: The building's owner demands that all the windows always be clean. Premise 3 : Yet even if the 5 washers work consistently throughout their regular work week, they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning. This is actually a fact set and has no conclusion.
It can be correctly inferred on the basis of the statements above that which of the following must be true? (A) If an Empire State Building window is to be kept clean, it must be cleaned by a professional window cleaner. (B) The owner's demand for proper cleaning of all the windows will never be fulfilled. (C) If a team of 5 window washers cleans all the Empire State Building's windows in less than 4 weeks, some of the windows will not be properly cleaned.- Based on premise 3 shown above, if the worker work regular hours, all the windows will not be properly clean in less than 4 weeks because to properly clean it takes 4 weeks. (D) In order to ensure that all of the Empire State Building's windows are clean, the owner must have his window washers work overtime. Correcting the error: This is wrong. If the workers take an amount of time to clean the windows that can not be covered even with overtime, this can not be correctly inferred. (E) Some Empire State Building windows must be cleaned more frequently than once every four weeks if they are to be kept clean.
4. Truck driver: The gasoline tax is too high and it must be lowered. It has been raised every year for the last five years, while other sales taxes have not. If the government persists in unfairly penalizing truck drivers, our increased operating costs will either hurt consumers or put us out of business. State official: But your gasoline tax dollars maintain and improve the very roads you depend on. Without those additional revenues, road conditions would deteriorate, costing you and consumers much more in maintenance and repairs. Truck driver: Premise 1: The gasoline tax is too high and it must be lowered. Premise 2: It has been raised every year for the last five years, while other sales taxes have not. Conclusion: If the government persists in unfairly penalizing truck drivers, our increased operating costs will either hurt consumers or put us out of business. State official: Premise 1: But your gasoline tax dollars maintain and improve the very roads you depend on. Conclusion : Without those additional revenues, road conditions would deteriorate, costing you and consumers much more in maintenance and repairs. The truck driver says that if the tax is lowered it will not hurt consumers or us "truck drivers" will not go out of business. The official explains that if the taxes are lowered his problem will actually worsen.
If the statements made above are true, the best characterization of the logical relationship between the two arguments is that the state official's response (A) points out that the truck driver's proposal will actually worsen the problem it is intended to solve - correct as explained above. (B) is circular, assuming the truth of its conclusion in order to justify its conclusion (C) points out that the truck driver is selfish because more people are aided by the gasoline tax than are penalized (D) is merely an attempt to excuse the government's policies without providing any justification for those policies (E) points to an inherent contradiction between the cause the truck driver cites and the effects the truck driver thinks will follow from the cause
I'll let dare2 bro post the OEs. Here is what I used as a line of reasoning. Please feel free to attack it: 3. It takes 4 weeks for a team of 5 professional window washers working regular full-time hours to properly clean every window of the Empire State Building. The buildings owner demands that all the windows always be clean. Yet even if the 5 washers work consistently throughout their regular work week, they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning. Premise 1 :It takes 4 weeks for a team of 5 professional window washers working regular full-time hours to properly clean every window of the Empire State Building. Premise 2: The buildings owner demands that all the windows always be clean. Premise 3 : Yet even if the 5 washers work consistently throughout their regular work week, they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning. This is actually a fact set and has no conclusion. It can be correctly inferred on the basis of the statements above that which of the following must be true? (C) If a team of 5 window washers cleans all the Empire State Buildings windows in less than 4 weeks, some of the windows will not be properly cleaned. (D) In order to ensure that all of the Empire State Buildings windows are clean, the owner must have his window washers work overtime. - Based on premise 3 shown above, if the worker work regular hours the windows will not be clean so if the owner want the windows to be clean he has to make them work overtime. (E) Some Empire State Building windows must be cleaned more frequently than once every four weeks if they are to be kept clean. 4. Truck driver: The gasoline tax is too high and it must be lowered. It has been raised every year for the last five years, while other sales taxes have not. If the government persists in unfairly penalizing truck drivers, our increased operating costs will either hurt consumers or put us out of business. State official: But your gasoline tax dollars maintain and improve the very roads you depend on. Without those additional revenues, road conditions would deteriorate, costing you and consumers much more in maintenance and repairs. Truck driver: Premise 1: The gasoline tax is too high and it must be lowered. Premise 2: It has been raised every year for the last five years, while other sales taxes have not. Conclusion: If the government persists in unfairly penalizing truck drivers, our increased operating costs will either hurt consumers or put us out of business. State official: Premise 1: But your gasoline tax dollars maintain and improve the very roads you depend on. Conclusion : Without those additional revenues, road conditions would deteriorate, costing you and consumers much more in maintenance and repairs. The truck driver says that if the tax is lowered it will not hurt consumers or us "truck drivers" will not go out of business. The official explains that if the taxes are lowered his problem will actually worsen. If the statements made above are true, the best characterization of the logical relationship between the two arguments is that the state officials response (A) points out that the truck drivers proposal will actually worsen the problem it is intended to solve - correct as explained above. (B) is circular, assuming the truth of its conclusion in order to justify its conclusion
Thanks man. I am convinced about 4 but partially. A has no flaw at all. I missed the part "truck drivers proposal, he actually proposes to lower the tax."
BUT, how about 3rd one? U selected C, OA is C and you explained answer for D. I am still with E. D is wrong, since if the owner wants windows clean, then he has option to employ more manpower, why OT? its an assumption. Refer to this in premise 3:" they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning." This means that some windows must be clean more frequently as E suggests. (E) Some Empire State Building windows must be cleaned more frequently than once every four weeks if they are to be kept clean. now WHAT? :-(
Thanks man. I am convinced about 4 but partially. A has no flaw at all. I missed the part "truck drivers proposal, he actually proposes to lower the tax."
BUT, how about 3rd one? U selected C, OA is C and you explained answer for D. I am still with E. D is wrong, since if the owner wants windows clean, then he has option to employ more manpower, why OT? its an assumption. Refer to this in premise 3:" they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning." This means that some windows must be clean more frequently as E suggests. (E) Some Empire State Building windows must be cleaned more frequently than once every four weeks if they are to be kept clean. now WHAT? :-(
Oh boy, that was a blunder. Apologies.I corrected the reasoning in my previous post. Gets confusing I swear.Though I wish it was not. But Let me try to explain why is E wrong: Premise 3 : Yet even if the 5 washers work consistently throughout their regular work week, they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning. Does this say that windows need cleaning just in 4 weeks. No it does not. It could be 5 weeks. So you see E can not be correctly inferred.
Oh boy, that was a blunder. Apologies. I guess I posted the answer couple-a days back.I corrected the reasoning in my previous post. Gets confusing I swear.Though I wish it was not. But Let me try to explain why is E wrong: Premise 3 : Yet even if the 5 washers work consistently throughout their regular work week, they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning. Does this say that windows need cleaning just after 4 weeks. No it does not. I give you a valid scenario that proves E wrong. The 5 workers take 6 weeks to clean working regular time; the windows need cleaning in 5 weeks. Valid. So you see E can not be correctly inferred.
hummmmmmmm... now i understand... thanks myte...
but hey, u r with C or D. OA is C. so we need to understand why its C right?
Oops!! u mean kaplan verbal workbook or 800? i have to check the explanation since i m not 100% convinced with OAs. Or just post the OE. thanks.
sorry bro.. dont have the OE.. but these questions are not 4m kaplan 800(i already checked in kaplan 800).. they may b 4m kaplan verbal workbook.. i got these questions 4m kaplan questions set.. i'll pm u the question-set file..
Oh boy, that was a blunder. Apologies.I corrected the reasoning in my previous post. Gets confusing I swear.Though I wish it was not. But Let me try to explain why is E wrong: Premise 3 : Yet even if the 5 washers work consistently throughout their regular work week, they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning. Does this say that windows need cleaning just in 4 weeks. No it does not. It could be 5 weeks. So you see E can not be correctly inferred.
I, still, am confused with this. I am still wid "E". Acc. to premise 1, It takes 4 weeks to properly clean all windows. Acc. to premise 3, Even if the 5 washers work consistently throughout their regular work week, they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning.
Option C is obvious & is already stated in premise 1 implicitly. So, OPTION 3 is not an inference. It is jus another way of quoting premise 1 ;)
Option E is the inference. B'coz as per premise 1, It takes 4 weeks to properly clean all windows. So, if they cannot be cleaned properly in 4 weeks, it means, some windows require re-cleaning in less than four weeks.
Btw, I guess, OA is also E (not C). Check out page 274 of this thread (post from Deepakraam)
The extent 2 wich a society is really free can be gauged by its attitude toward artistic expression. Freedom of expression can easily be violated in even the most outwardly democratic of societies. When a government arts council withholds funding from a dance performance that its member fom a dance performance dat its members deem "obscene" , the voices of a few bureacrats have in fact censored the work of d choreographer, thereby committing d real obscenity of repression.
Which of d following, if true, wud most weaken d argument above?
1.. Members of government arts council r screened to ensure dat their belief reflects those of majority. 2.. d term obsenity has several different definationsdat shud nt be used interchangeably for rhetorical effect. 3.. Failing to provide financial support for a performance is not d same as actively preventing or inhibiting it. 4.. The council's decision could be reversed if the performance were altered to conform to public standards of appropriateness. 5.. The definition of obscenity is something on which most members of a society can agree.
dare2 Says
option 3 hits the flaw in the above argument perfectly..
I, still, am confused with this. I am still wid "E". Acc. to premise 1, It takes 4 weeks to properly clean all windows. Acc. to premise 3, Even if the 5 washers work consistently throughout their regular work week, they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning.
Option C is obvious & is already stated in premise 1 implicitly. So, OPTION 3 is not an inference. It is jus another way of quoting premise 1 ;)
Option E is the inference. B'coz as per premise 1, It takes 4 weeks to properly clean all windows. So, if they cannot be cleaned properly in 4 weeks, it means, some windows require re-cleaning in less than four weeks.
Btw, I guess, OA is also E (not C). Check out page 274 of this thread (post from Deepakraam)
Regards,
thanks man.... no matter what is write for that question, ur post certainly increased my self-confidence of reasoning in CR... 😃
Electrical Engineers have developed an energy-efficient type of light bulbs that can replace the traditional incandescent bulb. The new bulb, known as the electronic lamp, operates by using a a high-frequency radio signal rather than d filament featured in incandescent bulbs. Although the electronic lamp currently costs 20 times as much as its tradional counterpart, its use will prove more cost effective in the long run. While a 100-watt incandescent bulb lasts 6 months if burned for 4 hours daily, a 25-watt electronic lamp used for the same amount of time each day lasts up to 14 years.
Argument above assumes that
1.. d typical household use of light bulb is approx 4 hours a day 2.. aside from its greater efficiency, d electronics lamp resembles d incandescent light bulb in most aspects 3.. d type of light cast by d electronic lamp is different from dat cast by an incandescent bulb. 4.. d price of electronics lamps will decrease as they are produced in increasingly greater quantities. 5.. a 100-watt incandescent light bulb does not provide significantly more light than a 25-watt electronic lamp.
The argument is trying to support the fact that a watt bulb will be more cost efficient in long run as compared to the incandescent bulb and compares the 100W and 25W bulbs. For the argument to be valid, the bulbs in questions must be comparable or should have similar outputs.
For example: If you are comparing two bikes, there is no point in comparing a 100cc Bajaj bike with a 800c Hayabusa unless they both can deliver same performance. In case of bulbs, the performance is judged by light it emits and thus (E) should be the correct answer.
ur answer is right but y not option 3.
we are saying its better in long use. so, it must be something which is making it more efficent than other.
I, still, am confused with this. I am still wid "E". Acc. to premise 1, It takes 4 weeks to properly clean all windows. Acc. to premise 3, Even if the 5 washers work consistently throughout their regular work week, they will not be able to finish cleaning all the windows before some windows will again need cleaning.
Option C is obvious & is already stated in premise 1 implicitly. So, OPTION 3 is not an inference. It is jus another way of quoting premise 1 ;)
Option E is the inference. B'coz as per premise 1, It takes 4 weeks to properly clean all windows. So, if they cannot be cleaned properly in 4 weeks, it means, some windows require re-cleaning in less than four weeks.
Btw, I guess, OA is also E (not C). Check out page 274 of this thread (post from Deepakraam)
Regards,
Maybe its just the way I am interpreting. So pardon me. Other fellas can you please post something in support of C.Is there no one supporting C
But here is option E again:
(E) Some Empire State Building windows must be cleaned more frequently than once every four weeks if they are to be kept clean.
Lets analyze - "All windows can be cleaned only in 4 weeks and some windows need to be re-cleaned in the duration" windows need cleaning o= 3 weeks. All windows can be cleaned = 4 weeks. Implies some (the windows that were cleaned in the 1st week) now need cleaning again by the time the workers finish with cleaning the last window. This is a specific statement and the sum refers to those windows as described.
going with the statement you made: What has been confusing me from the start is why should only "some" windows need cleaning once in every 4 weeks. This is a general statement. Because all windows are same so they should all need cleaning once in every 4 weeks. I could still consider this "Windows need to be cleaned once in every 4 weeks".
Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the northern coast of Norway have archaeologists puzzled. The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters. This theory cannot be right, because the painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway if they were to make the long journey to and from the islands, and there are no paintings that unambiguously depict such creatures.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings EXCEPT:
(A) Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals. (B) Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries. (C) The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals. (D) Those who did the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands had unusually advanced techniques of preserving meats. (E) The cave paintings on the islands were done by the original inhabitants of the islands who ate the meat of land animals.
In the original post I made the changes.
I am still wid "E".