All of John's friends say they know someone who has smoked 40 cigarettes a day for the past 40 years and yet who is really fit and well. John does not know anyone like that and it is quite certain that he is not unique among his friends in this respect. If the statements in the passage are true, then which one of the following must also be true? (A) Smoking often lie about how much they smoke. (B) People often knowingly exaggerate without intending to lie. (C) All John's friends know the same lifelong heavy smoker. (D) Most of John's friends are not telling the truth. (E) Some of John's friends are not telling the truth
I am getting d, but answer is e PLz explain
If there is even a single one among John's friends who doesnot know anyone who has smoked 40 cigs a day for 40 yrs then John is not unique. So with single one telling a lie about knowing such a smoker John is not unique.Same is true if all are lying. Some of John's friends could be any number of his friends. But most of John's friends limits the number to be in majority.
Friends i need your help, this is surely not the correct forum but i could not find one to post my query...i am planning to order the GMAT OFFICIAL GUIDE 12TH EDITION online...but there are two editions, one is the normal one another is paperback 2009...can you tell me what is the difference between the two so that i can make a choice? ...thanks in advance
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer's argument? A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
I think D weakens the arguement by letting us know that out of the buildings that were built before 1930 only those have survived that have excellent carpentry. Now the general carpentry of today is compared with the best of wht was before 1930 and have survived rill today and not the general carpentry before 1930. So the arguement: 'Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.' is clearly weakened by option D.
if carpenters had more skills prior to 1930s in building hotels then it is quite obvious that the quality of thehotels built would be more robust and wont get degraded.but this option D i think it rather streghtens than weakining the arguement.
my take is B D strengthens C-- if materials were of almost same quality then before 1930 carpenters worked with more skill, care, and effort to make such structures A. comparison is betn two hotels and not house and hotel E.If avg. lngth pf apprenticeship has declined then carpenters may take less care and develop less skill after 1930
Because no option seems to weaken it , i derived following logic in B
B.Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. ---weakens the argument that before 1930 accommodation was not sufficient i.e considering the same qty. of material required and same no. of furnitures made , better skill and care after 1930 allowed more accommodation.
my take is B D strengthens C-- if materials were of almost same quality then before 1930 carpenters worked with more skill, care, and effort to make such structures A. comparison is betn two hotels and not house and hotel E.If avg. lngth pf apprenticeship has declined then carpenters may take less care and develop less skill after 1930
Because no option seems to weaken it , i derived following logic in B
B.Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. ---weakens the argument that before 1930 accommodation was not sufficient i.e considering the same qty. of material required and same no. of furnitures made , better skill and care after 1930 allowed more accommodation.
say 100 hotels were built before 1930 and out of these 5 are standing till today then as per option D these 5 are those which have exceptional carpentry. Now say there are 100 hotels built recently and out of these 10 has carpentry better than 5 built before 1930. And now when comparing with the best 5 built before 1930 and standing till today 90 hotels out of 100 built recently are quality wise lacking and that is why its said 'I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward.'
Even though best 10 out of 100 built recently match the quality of best 5 out of 100 built before 1930.
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writers argument? C.The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
option C challenges the statement made by author stating materials were same so how can quality differ it would be also same. seeing option D from any point it happens to strenghten rather than weakining. ihope that one of our friend who posted should come up with OA also
Sir g, OA has been stated in the second post by mccon and it is D. Also quality difference is not the point of arguement but the skills of carpenters before and after 1930 is the point. If there is carpentry quality difference even with similar construction materials then isnt it obvious that skills of carpenter before and after 1930 is the reason and thus actually strengthening the arguement: 'Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.'
go for the latest edition...that is 12th edition...as in new edition questions based on revised new pattern are added...for ex from 2010 GMAT is emphasizing the questions based on meaning clarity in sc...so u can find a whole new bunch of those questions...
Also quality difference is not the point of arguement but the skills of carpenters before and after 1930 is the point. If there is carpentry quality difference even with similar construction materials then isnt it obvious that skills of carpenter before and after 1930.
if there is no difference in quality of work in carpentry before and after 1930 for constructing hotels then the concept of superiority itself gets falsified.when materials used will be same how can you expect work quality of carpentry same before and after 1930.even if there is difference in skills of of carpentry then how can one be sure that hotel quality will be superior before 1930 than after 1930.
I think it is taken from OG 12. When i said quality difference is not the point i did nt mean there is no quality difference
@cognizant_81: Bhai, just because some document which you have got from a source, tells u that the OA is C, its your job to find out, whether the explanation is logical or not.
IMO, D is the correct answer, kindly, do all of us a favor, flush all your thoughts, and the reasoning that some document gave you, and read this: D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished
-The buildings with poor quality that were constructed before 1930 were demolished. -The buildings with good quality that were constructed before 1930 are left. -So, all buildings constructed before 1930(and not demolished yet) have good quality and are compared with present day buildings of both, poor and good quality. (Comparison should be made at the same level, which is not the case here) -This weakens the argument that more skills is the reason why buildings constructed before 1930 have better quality. WHY - Becausethe proportion of badly built hotels before 1930 could have been much higher than it is now, but all of the bad ones have been demolished and replaced with modern buildings, so the writer is only seeing the best of the best that were built. - So although, quality difference is not the initial argument, the question leads us to it.
Please PM me if you have not understood this explanation, I will try to give you an explanation in different words.
Also quality difference is not the point of arguement but the skills of carpenters before and after 1930 is the point. If there is carpentry quality difference even with similar construction materials then isnt it obvious that skills of carpenter before and after 1930.
if there is no difference in quality of work in carpentry before and after 1930 for constructing hotels then the concept of superiority itself gets falsified.when materials used will be same how can you expect work quality of carpentry same before and after 1930.even if there is difference in skills of of carpentry then how can one be sure that hotel quality will be superior before 1930 than after 1930.
Journalist: Well known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?
(a)Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming elections reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
(b)Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?
(c)Did the information recently obtained by the journalist come directly from the election commission?
(d)Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
(e)Has Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
Someone plz be kind to answer the question alongwith the meaning of "gubernatorial" plz...
My dose The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?
(a)Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming elections reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
(b)Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?
(c)Did the information recently obtained by the journalist come directly from the election commission?
(d)Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
(e)Has Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
Someone plz be kind to answer the question alongwith the meaning of "gubernatorial" plz...
I think it should be E and all other options are irrelevent in evaluating the arguement. If Bergeron has fullfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections also then there is nothing different this time to make it more likely that he ll be running for the elections. But if he has done so this time only then it is more likely that he ll be a candidate in the elections.
gubernatorial elections are elections in which state governor is elected.
I just checked, this is a ques from OG12, No. 114 and the OA is indeed D :D
@cognizant_81: Bhai, just because some document which you have got from a source, tells u that the OA is C, its your job to find out, whether the explanation is logical or not.
IMO, D is the correct answer, kindly, do all of us a favor, flush all your thoughts, and the reasoning that some document gave you, and read this: D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished
-The buildings with poor quality that were constructed before 1930 were demolished. -The buildings with good quality that were constructed before 1930 are left. -So, all buildings constructed before 1930(and not demolished yet) have good quality and are compared with present day buildings of both, poor and good quality. (Comparison should be made at the same level, which is not the case here) -This weakens the argument that more skills is the reason why buildings constructed before 1930 have better quality. WHY - Becausethe proportion of badly built hotels before 1930 could have been much higher than it is now, but all of the bad ones have been demolished and replaced with modern buildings, so the writer is only seeing the best of the best that were built. - So although, quality difference is not the initial argument, the question leads us to it.
Please PM me if you have not understood this explanation, I will try to give you an explanation in different words.
A gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion dollars per year at current consumption rates. Since a tax of fifty cents per gallon would therefore raise fifty billion dollars per year, it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit. This tax would have the additional advantage that the resulting drop in the demand for gasoline would be ecologically sound and would keep our country from being too dependent on foreign oil producers. Which one of the following most clearly identifies an error in the authors reasoning? (A) The author cites irrelevant data. (B) The author relies on incorrect current consumption figures. (C) The author makes incompatible assumptions. (D) The author mistakes an effect for a cause. (E) The author appeals to conscience rather than reason.
Inorganic pesticides remain active on the surfaces of fruits and vegetables for several days after spraying, while organic pesticides dissipate within a few hours after application, leaving the surface of the sprayed produce free of pesticide residue. Therefore, when purchasing from a farm that uses inorganic pesticides, one must be careful to wash the produce thoroughly before eating it to prevent the ingestion of toxins. But one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing from farms that use only organic pesticides.
The argument above assumes that
A) Consumers are aware of the origins of the produce they purchase.
B) Produce from farms that use organic pesticides reaches the consumer within hours after it is picked or harvested.
C) No farm uses both organic and inorganic pesticides.
D) No pesticide is capable of penetrating the skin of a fruit or vegetable.
E) The use of either type of pesticide does not increase the cost of produce.
Inorganic pesticides remain active on the surfaces of fruits and vegetables for several days after spraying, while organic pesticides dissipate within a few hours after application, leaving the surface of the sprayed produce free of pesticide residue. Therefore, when purchasing from a farm that uses inorganic pesticides, one must be careful to wash the produce thoroughly before eating it to prevent the ingestion of toxins. But one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing from farms that use only organic pesticides.
The argument above assumes that
A) Consumers are aware of the origins of the produce they purchase.
B) Produce from farms that use organic pesticides reaches the consumer within hours after it is picked or harvested.
C) No farm uses both organic and inorganic pesticides.
D) No pesticide is capable of penetrating the skin of a fruit or vegetable.
E) The use of either type of pesticide does not increase the cost of produce.
Inorganic pesticides remain active on the surfaces of fruits and vegetables for several days after spraying, while organic pesticides dissipate within a few hours after application, leaving the surface of the sprayed produce free of pesticide residue. Therefore, when purchasing from a farm that uses inorganic pesticides, one must be careful to wash the produce thoroughly before eating it to prevent the ingestion of toxins. But one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing from farms that use only organic pesticides.
The argument above assumes that
A) Consumers are aware of the origins of the produce they purchase.
B) Produce from farms that use organic pesticides reaches the consumer within hours after it is picked or harvested.
C) No farm uses both organic and inorganic pesticides.
D) No pesticide is capable of penetrating the skin of a fruit or vegetable.
E) The use of either type of pesticide does not increase the cost of produce.
I think its closely between A and C and i would go with C
The question asks for assumption, means if u negate any of the ans choice and if in that case the conclusion of the argument become flawed, then thats gonna be correct assumption. as Premise + assumption = conclusion
Here, the conclusion indicates the need to wash fruits, i.e if farm use inorganic ----- need to wash farm use organic -------no need to wash
the premise is chemical remains on the surface..later dissipate . what if the pesticide penetrates the skin, in that case the "need to was" conclusion becomes flawed..
Inorganic pesticides remain active on the surfaces of fruits and vegetables for several days after spraying, while organic pesticides dissipate within a few hours after application, leaving the surface of the sprayed produce free of pesticide residue. Therefore, when purchasing from a farm that uses inorganic pesticides, one must be careful to wash the produce thoroughly before eating it to prevent the ingestion of toxins. But one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing from farms that use only organic pesticides.
The argument above assumes that
A) Consumers are aware of the origins of the produce they purchase.
B) Produce from farms that use organic pesticides reaches the consumer within hours after it is picked or harvested.
C) No farm uses both organic and inorganic pesticides.
D) No pesticide is capable of penetrating the skin of a fruit or vegetable.
E) The use of either type of pesticide does not increase the cost of produce.
I ll also go with D. Last 5 words of the argument eliminate C.
