As any economist knows, healthy people pose less of an economic burden to society than unhealthy people. Not surprisingly, then, every dollar our state government spends on prenatal care for undocumented immigrants will save taxpayers of this state three dollars.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the statistics cited above are not surprising?
(A) The state's taxpayers pay for prenatal care of all immigrants. (B) Pregnant women who do not receive prenatal care are more likely to experience health problems than other pregnant women. (C) State benefits for prenatal care serve to promote undocumented immigration. (D) Babies whose mothers did not receive prenatal care are just as healthy as other babies. (E) Babies born in this state to undocumented immigrant parents are entitled to infant care benefits from the state.
@Sujit: I would go for E as that one seems to impact the tax-payers directly.
As any economist knows, healthy people pose less of an economic burden to society than unhealthy people. Not surprisingly, then, every dollar our state government spends on prenatal care for undocumented immigrants will save taxpayers of this state three dollars.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the statistics cited above are not surprising?
(A) The state's taxpayers pay for prenatal care of all immigrants. (B) Pregnant women who do not receive prenatal care are more likely to experience health problems than other pregnant women. (C) State benefits for prenatal care serve to promote undocumented immigration. (D) Babies whose mothers did not receive prenatal care are just as healthy as other babies. (E) Babies born in this state to undocumented immigrant parents are entitled to infant care benefits from the state.
@Sujit: I would go for E as that one seems to impact the tax-payers directly.
I believe 1st we need to find the assumption that links the Conclusion with the Evidence. Fact : healthy people pose less of an economic burden to society than unhealthy people. Conclusion: every dollar our state government spends on prenatal care for undocumented immigrants will save taxpayers of this state three dollars.
We have to prove that "every dollar our state government spends on prenatal care" - will create healthy individuals (could be babies, mothers etc. but we do not know). A. Just a fact set and actually tells that the taxpayers do indeed pay. B. Prenatal care creates healthy women, so these women are less of an economic burden on the society. (could be a choice) C. this is out of scope. We are not concerned with if the immigration increases. D. This weakens the argument as a whole by saying that prenatal care is a waste of money. E. Out of scope - we are talking about prenatal care and not babies; Although the babies are entitled to infant care, this does not address the conclusion every dollar our state government spends on prenatal care for undocumented immigrants will save taxpayers of this state three dollars.
Please try solving below question with explaination as I am not convinced with the answer given. If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction, said the biologist. So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation, said the politician. Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologists claim but not with the politicians claim? (A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct. (B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct. (C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives. (D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives. (E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.
nelly348 Says
IMO it should be D but the answer given in 1000CR doc is B. Can you please eloborate more why it should be B
Option B no doubt contradicts what is said by politician acc to passage,biologist no where mentioned deforestation as the reason for forest becoming extinct there might be other reasons hence this option is consistent with biologist claim
Option B no doubt contradicts what is said by politician acc to passage,biologist no where mentioned deforestation as the reason for forest becoming extinct there might be other reasons hence this option is consistent with biologist claim
Isnt Bilogist claiming about rate of deforestation? So means may be Kola extinction factors,associated with other than deforestation but linked with deforesstation thats why he has mentioned rate of def... For ex. Excessive pollution during deforestation is the reason but slwoing down the defore.. will improve Koalas survival chance.
Please try solving below question with explaination as I am not convinced with the answer given. If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction, said the biologist. So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation, said the politician. Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologists claim but not with the politicians claim? (A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct. (B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct. (C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives. (D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives. (E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.
Please try solving below question with explaination as I am not convinced with the answer given. If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction, said the biologist. So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation, said the politician. Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologists claim but not with the politicians claim? (A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct. (B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct. (C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives. (D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives. (E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.
Found an explanation by a Kaplan instructor: No doubt this CR is amongst the 700-800 pool question:
Here is the explanation:
Biologist: If deforestation, then K extinct Politician: If no deforestation, then K not extinct
is the simplest way to translate the sentences.
When we say that two statements are consistent, we mean that they can both be true at the same time. Consistent doesn't mean connected.
For example:
Toronto is the capital of Ontario; and Oranges are bumpy
are consistent statements.
When we say that two statements are inconsistent, we mean that they cannot both be true at the same time - i.e. they're contradictory.
For example:
Washington DC is the capital of the USA; and Miama is the capital of the USA
are inconsistent statements.
So, back to our statements:
Biologist: If deforestation, then K extinct Politician: If no deforestation, then K not extinct
We want an answer that's consistent (i.e. doesn't contradict) with the biologist and inconsistent (i.e. does contradict) with the politician.
Choice (B) gives us what we want.
"Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct"
The biologist never says that deforestation is the only problem facing the Koala; it's possible that we save the forest but all the koalas get run over by drunken Aussies in vans.
However, the politician says that stopping deforestation will definitely save the Koala. (B) clearly contradicts that statement.
why are you forgetting that its not deforestation but pace of deforestation at current pace.
Nopes, I disagree. It's the reasons behind the extinction that are driving this question, not the pace. Like the Kaplan instruction mentioned the biologist never said that deforestation is the only reason behind Koala's extinction. That (being-'wordy') said, to put the answer choice in simple words, "Even if the deforestation is stopped, the Koala can become extinct".
The author omitted the extra words. Not a very good question though.
Hi! Plz tell the answer and explanation to this ques.
Various studies have shown that our forested and hilly regions and in general, areas where biodiversity-as reflected in the variety of flora, is high -are places where poverty appears to be high. And these same areas are also the ones where educational performance seems to be poor. Therefore it may be surmised that, even disregarding poverty status, richness in biodiversity goes hand in hand with educational backwardness.
Which one of the following statements, if true, can be said to provide the best supporting evidence for the surmise mentioned in the passage?
1)In regions where there is little variety in flora, educational performance is seen to be as good as in regions with high variety in flora where poverty levels are high. 2)Regions which show high bio-diversity also exhibit poor educational performance, at low levels of poverty. 3)Regions which show high bio-diversity reveal high poverty and poor educational performance. 4)In regions where there is low bio-diversity, at all levels of poverty, educational performance is seen to be good.
Hi! Plz tell the answer and explanation to this ques.
Various studies have shown that our forested and hilly regions and in general, areas where biodiversity-as reflected in the variety of flora, is high -are places where poverty appears to be high. And these same areas are also the ones where educational performance seems to be poor. Therefore it may be surmised that, even disregarding poverty status, richness in biodiversity goes hand in hand with educational backwardness.
Which one of the following statements, if true, can be said to provide the best supporting evidence for the surmise mentioned in the passage?
1)In regions where there is little variety in flora, educational performance is seen to be as good as in regions with high variety in flora where poverty levels are high.
My Take !!!! As the para talks abt disregarding poverty & examining the relationship between biodiversity & educational levels Hence option 1 best supports the para as an evidence since areas with lil bio diversity have sown good educationla performance even withhigh poverty levels
The final statement posits an inverse relation between richness of biodiversity and education backwardness, regardless of poverty... So any corroborating statement has to show that across different poverty levels, as bio-diversity increases/decreases, the education bckwardness decreases/increases...
1) states that education levels are same in low and high bio diversity locations if poverty levels are high.. this contradicts the initial supposition
2) shows the nverse relation but it is subject to the poverty levels and not independent of it. So it is incorrect.
3) relates bio-diversity with povery levels and education backwardness both.. Incorrect!!
4) Clearly shows that across all poverty levels, the lower bio-diversity implies higher educational performance.. Hence correct..
My 2 cents!
Hi! Plz tell the answer and explanation to this ques.
Various studies have shown that our forested and hilly regions and in general, areas where biodiversity-as reflected in the variety of flora, is high -are places where poverty appears to be high. And these same areas are also the ones where educational performance seems to be poor. Therefore it may be surmised that, even disregarding poverty status, richness in biodiversity goes hand in hand with educational backwardness.
Which one of the following statements, if true, can be said to provide the best supporting evidence for the surmise mentioned in the passage?
1)In regions where there is little variety in flora, educational performance is seen to be as good as in regions with high variety in flora where poverty levels are high. 2)Regions which show high bio-diversity also exhibit poor educational performance, at low levels of poverty. 3)Regions which show high bio-diversity reveal high poverty and poor educational performance. 4)In regions where there is low bio-diversity, at all levels of poverty, educational performance is seen to be good.
Hi! Plz tell the answer and explanation to this ques.
Various studies have shown that our forested and hilly regions and in general, areas where biodiversity-as reflected in the variety of flora, is high -are places where poverty appears to be high. And these same areas are also the ones where educational performance seems to be poor. Therefore it may be surmised that, even disregarding poverty status, richness in biodiversity goes hand in hand with educational backwardness.
Which one of the following statements, if true, can be said to provide the best supporting evidence for the surmise mentioned in the passage?
1)In regions where there is little variety in flora, educational performance is seen to be as good as in regions with high variety in flora where poverty levels are high. 2)Regions which show high bio-diversity also exhibit poor educational performance, at low levels of poverty. 3)Regions which show high bio-diversity reveal high poverty and poor educational performance. 4)In regions where there is low bio-diversity, at all levels of poverty, educational performance is seen to be good.
The final statement posits an inverse relation between richness of biodiversity and education backwardness, regardless of poverty... So any corroborating statement has to show that across different poverty levels, as bio-diversity increases/decreases, the education bckwardness decreases/increases...
1) states that education levels are same in low and high bio diversity locations if poverty levels are high.. this contradicts the initial supposition
2) shows the nverse relation but it is subject to the poverty levels and not independent of it. So it is incorrect.
3) relates bio-diversity with povery levels and education backwardness both.. Incorrect!!
4) Clearly shows that across all poverty levels, the lower bio-diversity implies higher educational performance.. Hence correct..
My 2 cents!
Yes, answer is 4th option according to my tutor, His explanation was same. But i am not able to understand how last statement implies inverse relationship between biodiversity and educational performance.
"..........richness in bio-diversity goes hand in hand with educational backwardness...." isn't this statement talking about relationship between rich BD and poor educational performance only? There can be possible that areas with low BD have poor educational performance too. Also, I think the answer should be 2, becuase para has already given example for high poverty+ rich BD+ educational backwardness. Option 2 supports the 'disregarding poverty status' argument by giving example of low poverty+rich BD+educational backwardness What say?
Hi! Plz tell the answer and explanation to this ques.
Various studies have shown that our forested and hilly regions and in general, areas where biodiversity-as reflected in the variety of flora, is high -are places where poverty appears to be high. And these same areas are also the ones where educational performance seems to be poor. Therefore it may be surmised that, even disregarding poverty status, richness in biodiversity goes hand in hand with educational backwardness.
Which one of the following statements, if true, can be said to provide the best supporting evidence for the surmise mentioned in the passage?
1)In regions where there is little variety in flora, educational performance is seen to be as good as in regions with high variety in flora where poverty levels are high. 2)Regions which show high bio-diversity also exhibit poor educational performance, at low levels of poverty. 3)Regions which show high bio-diversity reveal high poverty and poor educational performance. 4)In regions where there is low bio-diversity, at all levels of poverty, educational performance is seen to be good.
Mathematical explanation : Here is the assumed relationship of the author: biodiversity(B) directly proportional to poverty(P). biodiversity inversely proportional to education(E). hence combining the 2 eqns - b = k (P/E) Now the author says even if we disregard P, B is still dependent on E. This means B = K`(1/E) Checking the options: 1. States that E does not depend on B. Eliminated. 2. States that B = K(1/PE) i.e. Inversely proportional to P,E. opposite of what the premise says Eliminated 3. B = K (P/E) ;trap answer choice same as what the argument says, just that the relationship is reversed. Moreover we need an option that ignores the importance of P. Eliminated 4. Correct choice : B = k`(1/E) ;
Yes, answer is 4th option according to my tutor, His explanation was same. But i am not able to understand how last statement implies inverse relationship between biodiversity and educational performance.
"..........richness in bio-diversity goes hand in hand with educational backwardness...." isn't this statement talking about relationship between rich BD and poor educational performance only? There can be possible that areas with low BD have poor educational performance too. Also, I think the answer should be 2, becuase para has already given example for high poverty+ rich BD+ educational backwardness. Option 2 supports the 'disregarding poverty status' argument by giving example of low poverty+rich BD+educational backwardness What say?
Mathematical explanation : Here is the assumed relationship of the author: biodiversity(B) directly proportional to poverty(P). biodiversity inversely proportional to education(E). hence combining the 2 eqns - b = k (P/E) Now the author says even if we disregard P, B is still dependent on E. This means B = K`(1/E) Checking the options: 1. States that E does not depend on B. Eliminated. 2. States that B = K(1/PE) i.e. Inversely proportional to P,E. opposite of what the premise says Eliminated 3. B = K (P/E) ;trap answer choice same as what the argument says, just that the relationship is reversed. Moreover we need an option that ignores the importance of P. Eliminated 4. Correct choice : B = k`(1/E) ;
In 1980, a Danish ten-re coin minted in 1747 was sold at auction for $8,000. Eleanor Bixby owns another Danish ten-re coin minted in 1747. When she puts it on the market next week, it will fetch a price over $18,000. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn above? (A) Since 1980, the average price for rare coins has increased by over 150 percent. (B) There are only four coins like the one in question in the entire world. (C) Since 1980, the consumer price index has risen by over 150 percent. (D) In 1986, a previously unknown cache of one hundred coins just like the one in question was found.ďźˆD (E) Thirty prominent, wealthy coin collectors are expected to bid for Bixby's coin.
Though the question is simple....but i am still not convinced with its answer....D Please comment.....
the answer choices. I don't think that choice (B) is consistent with Bilogist's statement either.
