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.（D） (E) Thirty prominent, wealthy coin collectors are expected to bid for Bixbys coin.
Though the question is simple....but i am still not convinced with its answer....D Please comment.....
THE ANSWER D IS CORRECT. rEST ALL CHOICES STRENGTHEN THE QUESTIONS. THE ANSWER SI REST ON THE BASIS THAT THE COST OF RARE THINGS WOULD BE HIGH BUT ONLY CHOICE D SAYS THAT 100 COINRS ARE FOUND SO VALUE WILL BE LESS.YOU MAY ARGUE THAT ANCIENT COINS IN 100 NUMBERS WOULD BE STILL VERY EXPENSIVE. D THOUGH NOT A VERY GOOD ANSWER BUT IS THE BEST CHOICE.
From a macroeconomic perspective, the price of any article is determined by the demand-supply curves!:splat:
Lesser the availibility of a product, higher the people are willing to pay for it!! Now if the original coin sold for $8000 and then the supply increased by another 100! :cheers:
Since it is a rare coin, finding 100 of them would be a big deal! So now the supply has increased, and even if we assume the demand is static!! the cost per coin is expected to go down!!
Peace
Exactly.....though i also guess D but it does not actually weaken the argument....... anyways thanks for reply....
14. *Some analysts maintain that an embargo by country Litora on the export of a strategic metal to country Zenda, if imposed, would drive up the price of the metal in Zenda at least tenfold. They note that few other countries export the metal and that, with an embargo, Zenda might have to depend on as-yet-unexploited domestic sources of the metal. Which of the following, if true, constitutes the most serious objection to the analysis above? (A) Litoras economy depends heavily on foreign currency earned by the export of the strategic metal to other countries. (B) There are foreign-policy steps that Zenda could take to appease Litora and avoid being subjected to an embargo on the metal. (C) Geologists believe that additional deposits of the metal could possibly be found within the territory of Litora. (D) Only a small proportion of Zendas import expenditures is devoted to the import of the metal from Litora. (E) In case of an embargo, Zenda could buy the metal indirectly from Litora on the world market at a less than one-third increase in cost.
I opted for D but the ans is E....but still I feel D is more convincing what say guys????
The main statement posits that prices of strategic Material in Zenda will rise 10-fold if embargo is imposed.. This is simple demand supply relation and has nothing to with how much of Zenda's import expenditure is contributed by the metal...
So (E) is the right answer..
14. *Some analysts maintain that an embargo by country Litora on the export of a strategic metal to country Zenda, if imposed, would drive up the price of the metal in Zenda at least tenfold. They note that few other countries export the metal and that, with an embargo, Zenda might have to depend on as-yet-unexploited domestic sources of the metal. Which of the following, if true, constitutes the most serious objection to the analysis above? (A) Litoras economy depends heavily on foreign currency earned by the export of the strategic metal to other countries. (B) There are foreign-policy steps that Zenda could take to appease Litora and avoid being subjected to an embargo on the metal. (C) Geologists believe that additional deposits of the metal could possibly be found within the territory of Litora. (D) Only a small proportion of Zendas import expenditures is devoted to the import of the metal from Litora. (E) In case of an embargo, Zenda could buy the metal indirectly from Litora on the world market at a less than one-third increase in cost.
I opted for D but the ans is E....but still I feel D is more convincing what say guys????
14. *Some analysts maintain that an embargo by country Litora on the export of a strategic metal to country Zenda, if imposed, would drive up the price of the metal in Zenda at least tenfold. They note that few other countries export the metal and that, with an embargo, Zenda might have to depend on as-yet-unexploited domestic sources of the metal. Which of the following, if true, constitutes the most serious objection to the analysis above? (A) Litoras economy depends heavily on foreign currency earned by the export of the strategic metal to other countries. (B) There are foreign-policy steps that Zenda could take to appease Litora and avoid being subjected to an embargo on the metal. (C) Geologists believe that additional deposits of the metal could possibly be found within the territory of Litora. (D) Only a small proportion of Zendas import expenditures is devoted to the import of the metal from Litora. (E) In case of an embargo, Zenda could buy the metal indirectly from Litora on the world market at a less than one-third increase in cost.
I opted for D but the ans is E....but still I feel D is more convincing what say guys????
Like jawaharnr, rahul777 said they key point here is the 10 fold increase. Lets note here that 10 fold increase is not the conclusion. In CR language we call it a claim. The conclusion infact is that Zenda will have to depend on its domestic resources if the embargo is imposed. Note : Even if the 5%(Only a small proportion) of Zenda's metal imports depend on Litora, this 5% could drive the prices upto 10 times. Its a case of mathematics. We can prove that if need be. Lets create a mathematical scenario : Lets say Zenda imports 100 Pounds of metal X, 5 pounds from Litora. In a hypothetical scenario, we can assume that the demand for metal X is already greater/higher than the supply in Zenda and the local businesses are already competing for metal X. Now assuming the price prior to the embargo was $1/p and supply 100 p. Two major recipient of metal X are company C(Big manufacturer) and other small scale industries. The demand for company C is 95 pounds. Now the supply falls to 95 pounds. A big manufacturer C is willing to pay $10/p for this metal and he wants all 95 pounds to be delivered to him. This metal could be the most crucial raw material for his product and her could be making millions of dollars out of that product. We obviously know that Litora is the only source of the metal. So D does not win when compared to E. Summary D is refutable.
Now E clearly tells us about Litora selling in world market at less than 10 times the price. We should treat it as an alternate source. This option would be clearer/less ambiguous if we said that Zenda could buy Metal X from Uganda(alternate source) at 1.33 times the price. The claim about 10 fold increase is thereby weakened and also the conclusion is weakened since Zenda will not have to depend on its domestic resources. To weaken an argument, although the claim is important in the analysis, we have to attack the conclusion & not the claim. D still does not weaken the conclusion and Zenda might have to fall back on its domestic resources even if the small portion of the metal supply is compromised.
hey guys, What is the difference betwen "weaken the argument" and "criticism of the argument"
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other people's tobacco smoke increases the incidence of heart disease or lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers, legislation banning smoking in workplaces cannot be justified on health grounds 1.The argument reported above would be most seriously weakened if it were true that (A) Breathing smoke-filled air increase the incidence of headaches and coughs in healthy nonsmokers. (B) Most nonsmokers dislike the odor of smoke-filled air. (C) Smoke-filled air is a major source of the dirt that damages computers and other sensitive equipment. (D) Most workers would prefer to have smoking banned in workplaces.（A） (E) Legislation banning smoking in workplaces decreases friction between smoking and nonsmoking workers and is easy to enforce.
2. Of the following, which is the best criticism of the argument reported above? (A) It ignores causes of lung cancer other than smoking. (B) It neglects the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy. (C) It fails to mention the roles played by diet, exercise, and heredity in the development of heart disease. (D) It does not consider the possibility that nonsmokers who breathe smoke-filled air at work may become more concerned about their health.（B） (E) It does not acknowledge that nonsmokers, even those who breathe smoke-filled air at work, are in general healthier than smokers.
In the CR question below, a fact has been stated and an inference has been drawn from that fact... (typical for CR questions)
Now a criticism of the argument would be to identify the flaw in the linking of the fact and inference. There may be more than one flaw in such a linkage!
Weaken the argument goes one step further...Once the flaw has been identified, it also provides an example or fact that further corroborates the claim highlighting the flaw.
In this case, the answers in my opinion should be 1. (A) - If inhaling smoke filled air does indeed have impact on health, then a ban can be justified on health grounds (Though the impact it has for potential heart disease or lung cancer is unknown.. these are not the only two heaalth grounds on which you can get a smoking ban 2. (B) - By including non healthy non-smokers, the scope of people in the office has been increased, which the initial argument did not cover. So it is a good criticism of the original argument!! (Must dmit, i hae used PoE to arrive at the answer in the first place
Cheers, Nirav
hey guys, What is the difference betwen "weaken the argument" and "criticism of the argument"
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other peoples tobacco smoke increases the incidence of heart disease or lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers, legislation banning smoking in workplaces cannot be justified on health grounds 1.The argument reported above would be most seriously weakened if it were true that (A) Breathing smoke-filled air increase the incidence of headaches and coughs in healthy nonsmokers. (B) Most nonsmokers dislike the odor of smoke-filled air. (C) Smoke-filled air is a major source of the dirt that damages computers and other sensitive equipment. (D) Most workers would prefer to have smoking banned in workplaces.（A） (E) Legislation banning smoking in workplaces decreases friction between smoking and nonsmoking workers and is easy to enforce.
2. Of the following, which is the best criticism of the argument reported above? (A) It ignores causes of lung cancer other than smoking. (B) It neglects the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy. (C) It fails to mention the roles played by diet, exercise, and heredity in the development of heart disease. (D) It does not consider the possibility that nonsmokers who breathe smoke-filled air at work may become more concerned about their health.（B） (E) It does not acknowledge that nonsmokers, even those who breathe smoke-filled air at work, are in general healthier than smokers.
hi nirav, thanks a lot dude......i got an idea about the difference between them....but i shall practice more to spot the right answer in this kinda situation.
Six months or so after getting a video recorder, many early buyers apparently lost interest in obtaining videos to watch on it. The trade of businesses selling and renting videos is still buoyant, because the number of homes with video recorders is still growing. But clearly, once the market for video recorders is saturated, businesses distributing videos face hard times. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above? (A) The market for video recorders would not be considered saturated until there was one in 80 percent of homes. (B) Among the items handled by video distributors are many films specifically produced as video features. (C) Few of the early buyers of video recorders raised any complaints about performance aspects of the new product. (D) The early buyers of a novel product are always people who are quick to acquire novelties, but also often as quick to tire of them (E) In a shrinking market, competition always intensifies and marginal businesses fail.
Six months or so after getting a video recorder, many early buyers apparently lost interest in obtaining videos to watch on it. The trade of businesses selling and renting videos is still buoyant, because the number of homes with video recorders is still growing. But clearly, once the market for video recorders is saturated, businesses distributing videos face hard times. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above? (A) The market for video recorders would not be considered saturated until there was one in 80 percent of homes. (E) In a shrinking market, competition always intensifies and marginal businesses fail.
For me the choice is between A & E as both weaken the conclusion But since the conclusion is related to saturation of markets i would go with A
Fact: Six months or so after getting a video recorder, many early buyers apparently lost interest in obtaining videos to watch on it.
Inference: But clearly, once the market for video recorders is saturated, businesses distributing videos face hard times.
In order to weaken the above inference, any alternate explanation for buyers losing interest in the product has to be found!!
(A) - We dont know what the market is at present, 8% or 79%. So this does not help much. (B) - Irrelevant (C) - Could be an explanation. If this is the case, the companies can rectify the product and then maybe the distribution businesswill not saturate as people will still be using the recorder to watch movies. (D) - Good explanation. since ealry buyers are the ones who lost interest after 6 months. If this is a characteristic trait of this market segment, then no inference about the overall industry can be drawn by the behaviour of one segment of the market!! IMO..the correct answer (E) - Irrelevant
Cheers, Nirav
what say guys???
Six months or so after getting a video recorder, many early buyers apparently lost interest in obtaining videos to watch on it. The trade of businesses selling and renting videos is still buoyant, because the number of homes with video recorders is still growing. But clearly, once the market for video recorders is saturated, businesses distributing videos face hard times. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above? (A) The market for video recorders would not be considered saturated until there was one in 80 percent of homes. (B) Among the items handled by video distributors are many films specifically produced as video features. (C) Few of the early buyers of video recorders raised any complaints about performance aspects of the new product. (D) The early buyers of a novel product are always people who are quick to acquire novelties, but also often as quick to tire of them (E) In a shrinking market, competition always intensifies and marginal businesses fail.
Six months or so after getting a video recorder, many early buyers apparently lost interest in obtaining videos to watch on it. The trade of businesses selling and renting videos is still buoyant, because the number of homes with video recorders is still growing. But clearly, once the market for video recorders is saturated, businesses distributing videos face hard times. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above? (A) The market for video recorders would not be considered saturated until there was one in 80 percent of homes. (B) Among the items handled by video distributors are many films specifically produced as video features. (C) Few of the early buyers of video recorders raised any complaints about performance aspects of the new product. (D) The early buyers of a novel product are always people who are quick to acquire novelties, but also often as quick to tire of them (E) In a shrinking market, competition always intensifies and marginal businesses fail.
D:) I go with. Bcoz, that being the only option that gives an alternate solution to the losing interest problem of early buyers
I took quite a long time to solve and finally solved it wrong :-( Q.The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions. If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true? (A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements. (B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services. (C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services. (D) If more lawyers advertise lower prices for specific services, some lawyers who do not advertise will also charge less than they currently charge for those services. (E) If the only restrictions on the advertising of legal services were those that apply to every type of advertising, most lawyers would advertise their services
But, this is a tricky one for the reason that, generally we never tend to choose an option that is straight forward. So, we try other options and finally choose the best option after a good analysis of all options except "that straight forward option" and end up wrong !! ;)
I took quite a long time to solve and finally solved it wrong :-( Q.The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions. If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true? (A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements. (B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services. (C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services. (D) If more lawyers advertise lower prices for specific services, some lawyers who do not advertise will also charge less than they currently charge for those services. (E) If the only restrictions on the advertising of legal services were those that apply to every type of advertising, most lawyers would advertise their services
I took quite a long time to solve and finally solved it wrong :-(
Evidence: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. Conclusion: Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions. If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?= Implies we have to find the assumption. (A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements - This will increase overall consumer costs. Eliminated. (B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services. - Does not talk about costs. Eliminated. (C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services. - If more lawyers advertise, the cost will be lower. Since we already know from the argument that lawyers who advertise charge less. (D) If more lawyers advertise lower prices for specific services, some lawyers who do not advertise will also charge less than they currently charge for those services. - This is irrelevant. Since the argument is talking about ads in which the price will not be advertised. (E) If the only restrictions on the advertising of legal services were those that apply to every type of advertising, most lawyers would advertise their services - irrelevant. The argument does not talk about restrictions on every type of advertising
