ecently 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.
is it A?
ecently 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.
is it A?
The overall is is C, not convinced 😞
ecently 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.
is it A?
i think u have misunderstood the question.. question says all the options weakens the argument EXCEPT..
only option C doesn't weaken the argument(rather supports it)..
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.
My take B.
trying the traditional way:
Premise 1: Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the northern coast of Norway have archaeologists puzzled.
Premise 2: The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters.
Premise 3: 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.
Conclusion: This theory cannot be right.
We have to find what strengthens the argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings i.e. what proves that the theory that "The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters" is wrong and the authors argument stands true.
A. says the theory is true because they ate land animals and painted land animals hence argument weakened.
B. This strengthens the authors argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings because it shows that they did eat sea food and perhaps painted it but over centuries those pictures were ruined. Hence the northern cave paintings was that they were LARGELY a description of the current diets of the painters is NOT TRUE.
C. says the theory is true because they painted land animals so they ate land animals hence argument weakened.
D. says that they preserved meat and ate it so they never needed to eat sea food, hence weakened.
E. Directly says that the original inhabitants ate the meat of land animals hence painted land animals hence weakened.
My take B.
trying the traditional way:
Premise 1: Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the northern coast of Norway have archaeologists puzzled.
Premise 2: The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters.
Premise 3: 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.
Conclusion: This theory cannot be right.
We have to find what strengthens the argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings i.e. what proves that the theory that "The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters" is wrong and the authors argument stands true.
A. says the theory is true because they ate land animals and painted land animals hence argument weakened.
B. This strengthens the authors argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings because it shows that they did eat sea food and perhaps painted it but over centuries those pictures were ruined. Hence the northern cave paintings was that they were LARGELY a description of the current diets of the painters is NOT TRUE.
C. says the theory is true because they painted land animals so they ate land animals hence argument weakened.
D. says that they preserved meat and ate it so they never needed to eat sea food, hence weakened.
E. Directly says that the original inhabitants ate the meat of land animals hence painted land animals hence weakened.
I agree. Answer should be B. BUT, one correction in your line of thinking for We have to find what strengthens the argument".
We dont have to find what strengthens, we just have to find what DOESNT WEAKEN the argument. The correct answer may not do anything to the passage and still be correct because all other 4 weakens. According to me, we have to find 4 choices that weaken the conclusion that "the predominant theory can not be right", meaning that "the theory can be right".
CHoice B states that "Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries." This doesnt strengthen the argument because this doesnt mean that the lost part of paintings were showing that they eat seafood and anything related to their diet. parts of the paintings did not survive, so what? it doesnt have anything to do with the argument and so the answer.
Please correct my logic of reasoning here if wrong.
I agree. Answer should be B. BUT, one correction in your line of thinking for We have to find what strengthens the argument".
We dont have to find what strengthens, we just have to find what DOESNT WEAKEN the argument. The correct answer may not do anything to the passage and still be correct because all other 4 weakens. According to me, we have to find 4 choices that weaken the conclusion that "the predominant theory can not be right", meaning that "the theory can be right".
CHoice B states that "Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries." This doesnt strengthen the argument because this doesnt mean that the lost part of paintings were showing that they eat seafood and anything related to their diet. parts of the paintings did not survive, so what? it doesnt have anything to do with the argument and so the answer.
Please correct my logic of reasoning here if wrong.
Heya Guys, How is your preparation going on !!!
Let me introduce one logic before commenting anything on this question.
Logically Not weaken is not equal to Strengthen. It can be neutral too.
Not weaken statement is the one which is not weakening the argument so it implies that it can be a neutral statement too, a statement which does not have any effect on the argument.
In the above question only B is neutral statement which does not say anything about relation between the marine diet of the painters and sculptors of the painting.
ecently 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.
argument is :
The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters.
we need to find the sentence which if true weakens the argument.
sentence 1:
(A) Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals.
i think it is the most irrelevant statement among the five choices.
in(B) Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.
in B it can be said that you cannot clearly tell about the theory . so i think it weakens the argument.
please cleat my doubts...
I agree. Answer should be B. BUT, one correction in your line of thinking for We have to find what strengthens the argument".
We dont have to find what strengthens, we just have to find what DOESNT WEAKEN the argument. The correct answer may not do anything to the passage and still be correct because all other 4 weakens. According to me, we have to find 4 choices that weaken the conclusion that "the predominant theory can not be right", meaning that "the theory can be right".
CHoice B states that "Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries." This doesnt strengthen the argument because this doesnt mean that the lost part of paintings were showing that they eat seafood and anything related to their diet. parts of the paintings did not survive, so what? it doesnt have anything to do with the argument and so the answer.
Please correct my logic of reasoning here if wrong.
Heya Guys, How is your preparation going on !!!
Let me introduce one logic before commenting anything on this question.
Logically Not weaken is not equal to Strengthen. It can be neutral too.
Not weaken statement is the one which is not weakening the argument so it implies that it can be a neutral statement too, a statement which does not have any effect on the argument.
In the above question only B is neutral statement which does not say anything about relation between the marine diet of the painters and sculptors of the painting.
My bad, got carried away in the explanation.
You guys are absolutely correct. Lets highlight it below:
Not weakens is NOT only equal to Strengthens.
Not only can be anything that {Strengthens or does not alter/affect the conclusion}.
pizzo SaysThe overall is is C, not convinced :(
Sorry guys but the answer indeed has to be C here. You guys have misunderstood the question.
Lets go step by step:
What is the predominant theory about Northern cave paintings? That these paintings reflected the diets of the painters at that time. And the argument says that this theory cannot be right because the painters must have had to eat sea animals but there are no paintings of sea animals.
Now the question stem says that 4 options weaken this argument against the theory which means that these 4 options will strengthen the theory that these people might have actually painted whatever it is that they were eating at that time.
There are 2 ways of doing this-
1) Prove that they were eating land animals even while visiting these islands in which case the paintings that have been discovered are in sync with the diets.
2) Show that they might have painted the sea animals but that these paintings might have been lost or destroyed.
With this background lets analyze each of the options:
A - Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals. -Makes use of point 1 above. Strengthens the argument in favour of the theory so weakens the argument against the theory.
B Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.
Makes use of point 2 above. These paintings which haven't survived might have been those of sea animals; so these painters may have been eating the sea animals and may have painted the same but these paintings haven't survived. Again strengthens the argument in favour of the theory so weakens the argument against the theory.
C - The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals. This never takes into account what the painters were eating at that time. As the argument says the painters would have had to eat sea animals but this option says that they only painted land animals then the theory that the painters painted whatever they ate is surely false. Remember you don't have to weaken the theory itself but rather the argument AGAINST the theory. This clearly is the answer.
D -Those who did the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands had unusually advanced techniques of preserving meats.
Makes use of point 1 above. Since these guys could preserve meats (presumably of land animals) they didn't have to hunt sea animals. Strengthens the argument in favour of the theory so weakens the argument against the theory.
E - The cave paintings on the islands were done by the original inhabitants
of the islands who ate the meat of land animals.
Makes use of point 1 above. If the original inhabitants ate land animals then they have painted the same. Once again strengthens the argument in favour of the theory so weakens the argument against the theory.
Fairly long explanation but hope it helps.
Cheers!
Sorry guys but the answer indeed has to be C here. You guys have misunderstood the question.
Lets go step by step:
What is the predominant theory about Northern cave paintings? That these paintings reflected the diets of the painters at that time. And the argument says that this theory cannot be right because the painters must have had to eat sea animals but there are no paintings of sea animals.
Now the question stem says that 4 options weaken this argument against the theory which means that these 4 options will strengthen the theory that these people might have actually painted whatever it is that they were eating at that time.
There are 2 ways of doing this-
1) Prove that they were eating land animals even while visiting these islands in which case the paintings that have been discovered are in sync with the diets.
2) Show that they might have painted the sea animals but that these paintings might have been lost or destroyed.
With this background lets analyze each of the options:
A - Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals. -Makes use of point 1 above. Strengthens the argument in favour of the theory so weakens the argument against the theory.
B Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.
Makes use of point 2 above. These paintings which haven't survived might have been those of sea animals; so these painters may have been eating the sea animals and may have painted the same but these paintings haven't survived. Again strengthens the argument in favour of the theory so weakens the argument against the theory.
C - The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals. This never takes into account what the painters were eating at that time. As the argument says the painters would have had to eat sea animals but this option says that they only painted land animals then the theory that the painters painted whatever they ate is surely false. Remember you don't have to weaken the theory itself but rather the argument AGAINST the theory. This clearly is the answer.
D -Those who did the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands had unusually advanced techniques of preserving meats.
Makes use of point 1 above. Since these guys could preserve meats (presumably of land animals) they didn't have to hunt sea animals. Strengthens the argument in favour of the theory so weakens the argument against the theory.
E - The cave paintings on the islands were done by the original inhabitants
of the islands who ate the meat of land animals.
Makes use of point 1 above. If the original inhabitants ate land animals then they have painted the same. Once again strengthens the argument in favour of the theory so weakens the argument against the theory.
Fairly long explanation but hope it helps.
Cheers!
: to the forum. While you are correct in explaining the motive, there is one problem. The argument is not to be weakened against the fact that they ate sea animals. Because the argument says that "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". This is an assumption. Based on this assumption the author is trying to say that the painting of only land animals can not represent their current diet since there are no sea animals depicted. And we have to weaken this.
Gail.Wynand Says: to the forum. While you are correct in explaining the motive, there is one problem. The argument is not to be weakened against the fact that they ate sea animals. Because the argument says that "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". This is an assumption. Based on this assumption the author is trying to say that the painting of only land animals can not represent their current diet since there are no sea animals depicted. And we have to weaken this.
I still think you've got the question wrong. The argument doesn't have to be weakened against anything ( I don't even understand what it means to weaken the argument against something, but that's a SC discussion :)). Rather the overall argument itself is AGAINST something (the predominant theory) and it is this argument that needs to be weakend by 4 options.
See my reasoning is simple. What is the conclusion of the argument - That the theory cannot be right (so the author is arguing against the theory or the entire argument is against the theory)
Now what is the theory mentioned in the argument. Let me quote it from the argument itself - 'The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters'.
The question stem clearly says that 4 options will weaken this argument AGAINST the theory ('argument against the theory' is one word; don't look at 'against' separately as that is what is confusing you) and which means these 4 options will strengthen the actual theory. The one option that is left may weaken the actual theory or may be totally irrelevant.
This is what you have explained:
We have to find what strengthens the argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings i.e. what proves that the theory that "The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters" is wrong and the authors argument stands true.
You don't need to find what strengthens the argument against the theory; rather you need to find 4 options that weaken the argument AGAINST the theory and the 1 option that is left has to be the answer.
I totally fail to see how B can be the answer as it clearly weakens the argument AGAINST the theory. This is what you have said - .... it shows that they did eat sea food and perhaps painted it but over centuries those pictures were ruined.
Based on what you've said above, the theory that they painted what they ate is correct so this clearly weakens the argument against the theory which says that this theory is incorrect.
The answer has to be C.
What is the OA anyway?
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private
ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that
businesses will always fare better under private than
under public ownership.
Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has
been profitable since the appointment of a first-class
manager, which happened while X was still in the
pubic sector.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in Rosss claim on which Julias response
focuses?
(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.
(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.
(C) Rosss statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he
attributes to it.
(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately
owned.
(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X.
Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by
some growers from pepper to cocoa left those growers no better off than if none of them had
switched; this conclusion, however, is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that
(A) those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go
(B) the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial
(C) supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had not switched crops
(D) cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops
(E) as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa
will fall precipitously.
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the states budget has increased by an average of 6
percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the states budget increased by
an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor
Verdants term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous
governors term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdants term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdants
term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdants term in office, the states budget has shown some increase in
spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdants term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private
citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous
governors term.
(E) During the previous governors term in office, the state introduced several so-called
austerity budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.
Companies considering new cost-cutting manufacturing processes often compare the projected
results of making the investment against the alternative of not making the investment with
costs, selling prices, and share of market remaining constant.
Which of the following, assuming that each is a realistic possibility, constitutes the most
serious disadvantage for companies of using the method above for evaluating the financial
benefit of new manufacturing processes?
(A) The costs of materials required by the new process might not be known with certainty.
(B) In several years interest rates might go down, reducing the interest costs of borrowing
money to pay for the investment.
(C) Some cost-cutting processes might require such expensive investments that there would be
no net gain for many years, until the investment was paid for by savings in the
manufacturing process.
(D) Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take
market share away from companies that do not.
(E) The period of year chosen for averaging out the cost of the investment might be somewhat
longer or shorter, thus affecting the result.
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".
This question is pretty tricky ;)
Let me put it this way.
I don't think we can assume "ALL WINDOWS NEED CLEANING once in every 4 weeks" because as per premise 3, only "SOME" windows need re-cleaning.
So, you cannot treat all WINDOWS the same.
For Example : The building can have some special type windows which get dirty faster (on environment exposure) than other windows & hence they might require frequent 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 1, kind of, tells the CAPABILITY (efficiency) of the Window-washers towards cleaning a definite number of windows (not necessarily of the same type)
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.
Premise 3 as you mentioned is a FACT & NOT an inference :)
And the QUESTION IS "INFERENCE".
I agree with you perfectly. OPTION "C" is not wrong. But the sad part is, it is just an implicit EXCERPT (as already mentioned) & not an inference.
Inference is something derived from the passage.
So, Seeing premise 1 & premise 3 (&obviously; along with premise 2), it can be clearly inferred that SOME WINDOWS need RE-CLEANING in less than 4 weeks. 😃
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private
ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that
businesses will always fare better under private than
under public ownership.
Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has
been profitable since the appointment of a first-class
manager, which happened while X was still in the
pubic sector.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in Rosss claim on which Julias response
focuses?
(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.
(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.
(C) Rosss statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he
attributes to it.
(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately
owned.
(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X.
Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by
some growers from pepper to cocoa left those growers no better off than if none of them had
switched; this conclusion, however, is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that
(A) those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go
(B) the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial
(C) supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had not switched crops
(D) cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops
(E) as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa
will fall precipitously.
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the states budget has increased by an average of 6
percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the states budget increased by
an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor
Verdants term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous
governors term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdants term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdants
term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdants term in office, the states budget has shown some increase in
spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdants term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private
citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous
governors term.
(E) During the previous governors term in office, the state introduced several so-called
austerity budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.
Companies considering new cost-cutting manufacturing processes often compare the projected
results of making the investment against the alternative of not making the investment with
costs, selling prices, and share of market remaining constant.
Which of the following, assuming that each is a realistic possibility, constitutes the most
serious disadvantage for companies of using the method above for evaluating the financial
benefit of new manufacturing processes?
(A) The costs of materials required by the new process might not be known with certainty.
(B) In several years interest rates might go down, reducing the interest costs of borrowing
money to pay for the investment.
(C) Some cost-cutting processes might require such expensive investments that there would be
no net gain for many years, until the investment was paid for by savings in the
manufacturing process.
(D) Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take
market share away from companies that do not.
(E) The period of year chosen for averaging out the cost of the investment might be somewhat
longer or shorter, thus affecting the result.
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private
ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that
businesses will always fare better under private than
under public ownership.
Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has
been profitable since the appointment of a first-class
manager, which happened while X was still in the
pubic sector.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in Rosss claim on which Julias response
focuses?
(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.
(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.
(C) Rosss statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he
attributes to it.
(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately
owned.
(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X.
Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by
some growers from pepper to cocoa left those growers no better off than if none of them had
switched; this conclusion, however, is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that
(A) those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go
(B) the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial
(C) supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had not switched crops
(D) cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops
(E) as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa
will fall precipitously.
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the states budget has increased by an average of 6
percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the states budget increased by
an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor
Verdants term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous
governors term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdants term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdants
term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdants term in office, the states budget has shown some increase in
spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdants term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private
citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous
governors term.
(E) During the previous governors term in office, the state introduced several so-called
austerity budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.
Companies considering new cost-cutting manufacturing processes often compare the projected
results of making the investment against the alternative of not making the investment with
costs, selling prices, and share of market remaining constant.
Which of the following, assuming that each is a realistic possibility, constitutes the most
serious disadvantage for companies of using the method above for evaluating the financial
benefit of new manufacturing processes?
(A) The costs of materials required by the new process might not be known with certainty.
(B) In several years interest rates might go down, reducing the interest costs of borrowing
money to pay for the investment.
(C) Some cost-cutting processes might require such expensive investments that there would be
no net gain for many years, until the investment was paid for by savings in the
manufacturing process.
(D) Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take
market share away from companies that do not.
(E) The period of year chosen for averaging out the cost of the investment might be somewhat
longer or shorter, thus affecting the result.
Looks like:
Company X's profitability --> C
Pepper & Cocoa --> B
Governer's headache 😉 --> E
Cost-cutters --> D
Answers pls...
Regards,
1. Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.
Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has not decreased its threshold of economic viability?
(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs for that equipment.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable.
2. United States hospitals have traditionally relied primarily on revenues from paying patients to offset losses from unreimbursed care. Almost all paying patients now rely on governmental or private health insurance to pay hospital bills. Recently, insurers have been strictly limiting what they pay hospitals for the care of insured patients to amounts at or below actual costs.
Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?
(A) Although the advance of technology has made expensive medical procedures available to the wealthy, such procedures are out of the reach of low-income patients.
(B) If hospitals do not find ways to raising additional income for unreimbursed care, they must either deny some of that care or suffer losses if they give it.
(C) Some patients have incomes too high for eligibility for governmental health insurance but are unable to afford private insurance for hospital care.
(D) If the hospitals reduce their costs in providing care, insurance companies will maintain the current level of reimbursement, thereby providing more funds for unreimbursed care.
(E) Even though philanthropic donations have traditionally provided some support for the hospitals, such donations are at present declining.
1. Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.
Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has not decreased its threshold of economic viability?
(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs for that equipment.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable.
2. United States hospitals have traditionally relied primarily on revenues from paying patients to offset losses from unreimbursed care. Almost all paying patients now rely on governmental or private health insurance to pay hospital bills. Recently, insurers have been strictly limiting what they pay hospitals for the care of insured patients to amounts at or below actual costs.
Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?
(A) Although the advance of technology has made expensive medical procedures available to the wealthy, such procedures are out of the reach of low-income patients.
(B) If hospitals do not find ways to raising additional income for unreimbursed care, they must either deny some of that care or suffer losses if they give it.
(C) Some patients have incomes too high for eligibility for governmental health insurance but are unable to afford private insurance for hospital care.
(D) If the hospitals reduce their costs in providing care, insurance companies will maintain the current level of reimbursement, thereby providing more funds for unreimbursed care.
(E) Even though philanthropic donations have traditionally provided some support for the hospitals, such donations are at present declining.
Yup ... both of you are bang on ..!! can somebody please explain the logic behind it ..
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private
ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that
businesses will always fare better under private than
under public ownership.
Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has
been profitable since the appointment of a first-class
manager, which happened while X was still in the
pubic sector.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in Rosss claim on which Julias response
focuses?
(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.
(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.
(C) Rosss statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he
attributes to it.
(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately
owned.
(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X.
Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by
some growers from pepper to cocoa left those growers no better off than if none of them had
switched; this conclusion, however, is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that
(A) those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go
(B) the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial
(C) supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had not switched crops
(D) cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops
(E) as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa
will fall precipitously.
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the states budget has increased by an average of 6
percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the states budget increased by
an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor
Verdants term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous
governors term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdants term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdants
term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdants term in office, the states budget has shown some increase in
spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdants term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private
citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous
governors term.
(E) During the previous governors term in office, the state introduced several so-called
austerity budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.
Companies considering new cost-cutting manufacturing processes often compare the projected
results of making the investment against the alternative of not making the investment with
costs, selling prices, and share of market remaining constant.
Which of the following, assuming that each is a realistic possibility, constitutes the most
serious disadvantage for companies of using the method above for evaluating the financial
benefit of new manufacturing processes?
(A) The costs of materials required by the new process might not be known with certainty.
(B) In several years interest rates might go down, reducing the interest costs of borrowing
money to pay for the investment.
(C) Some cost-cutting processes might require such expensive investments that there would be
no net gain for many years, until the investment was paid for by savings in the
manufacturing process.
(D) Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take
market share away from companies that do not.
(E) The period of year chosen for averaging out the cost of the investment might be somewhat
longer or shorter, thus affecting the result.
Looks like:
Company X's profitability --> C
Pepper & Cocoa --> B
Governer's headache 😉 --> E
Cost-cutters --> D
Answers pls...
Regards,
OAs pls.... 😉
1. Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.
Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has not decreased its threshold of economic viability?
(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs for that equipment.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable.
2. United States hospitals have traditionally relied primarily on revenues from paying patients to offset losses from unreimbursed care. Almost all paying patients now rely on governmental or private health insurance to pay hospital bills. Recently, insurers have been strictly limiting what they pay hospitals for the care of insured patients to amounts at or below actual costs.
Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?
(A) Although the advance of technology has made expensive medical procedures available to the wealthy, such procedures are out of the reach of low-income patients.
(B) If hospitals do not find ways to raising additional income for unreimbursed care, they must either deny some of that care or suffer losses if they give it.
(C) Some patients have incomes too high for eligibility for governmental health insurance but are unable to afford private insurance for hospital care.
(D) If the hospitals reduce their costs in providing care, insurance companies will maintain the current level of reimbursement, thereby providing more funds for unreimbursed care.
(E) Even though philanthropic donations have traditionally provided some support for the hospitals, such donations are at present declining.
1). WOW, Oil and gas, i am loving my field...anyway the question is why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has not decreased its threshold of economic viability?
"new solar power plants to be more economical than new oil-fired power plants" is not happening. Powerscore approach to paraphrase and think,
two possibilities: 1) some prob with solar 2) Oil fired power plants are getting better. scan the choices. C says Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants. C is the answer.
2) Inference question:
Premise: hospitals rely on paying patients. Almost all Paying patients rely on insurance. Insurers are usual cheaters so they wont pay enough. Ultimately hospitals are screwed.
Answer: pick the choice which gives minimum information which is 100% correct based on stimulli. only B says If hospitals do not find ways to raising additional income for unreimbursed care, they must either deny some of that care or suffer losses if they give it. Scanning other choices closely reveals that most of them are out of scope.
have a lovely weekend guys!!