Pamela: Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children, because those children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future. Therefore, businesses should adopt policies, such as day-care benefits that facilitate parenting. Lee: No individual company, though, will be patronized, staffed, and managed only by its own employees children, so it would not be to a companys advantage to provide such benefits to employees children, so it would not be to a companys advantage to provide such benefits to employees when other companies do not. In which one of the following pairs consisting of argument and objection does the objection function most similarly to the way Lees objection functions in relation to Pamelas argument? Objection: The air one person breathes is affected mainly by pollution caused by others, so it makes no sense to act alone to curb air pollution. Pamela: Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children, because those children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future. Therefore, businesses should adopt policies, such as day-care benefits that facilitate parenting. Lee: No individual company, though, will be patronized, staffed, and managed only by its own employees children, so it would not be to a companys advantage to provide such benefits to employees children, so it would not be to a companys advantage to provide such benefits to employees when other companies do not. In which one of the following pairs consisting of argument and objection does the objection function most similarly to the way Lees objection functions in relation to Pamelas argument? (A) New roads will not serve to relieve this areas traffic congestion, because new roads would encourage new construction and generate additional traffic. Objection: Failure to build new roads would mean that traffic congestion would strangle the area even earlier. (B) Humanity needs clean air to breathe, so each person should make an effort avoid polluting the air. Objection: The air one person breathes is affected mainly by pollution caused by others, so it makes no sense to act alone to curb air pollution.[/FONT] (C) Advertised discounts on products draw customers attention to the productsΔΕΊΕ so advertised discounts benefit sales. Objection: Customers already planning to purchase a product accelerate buying to take advantage of advertised discounts, and those subsequent sales suffer. (D) If people always told lies, then no one would know what the truth was, so people should always tell the truth. Objection: If people always told lies, then everyone would know that the truth was the opposite of what was said. (E) Human social institutions have always changed. So even if we do not know what those changes will be, we do know that the social institutions of the future will differ from those of the past. Objection: The existence of change in the past does not ensure that there will always be change in the future
Pedro: Unlike cloth diapers, disposable diapers are a threat to the environment. Sixteen billion disposable diapers are discarded annually, filling up landfills at an alarming rate. So people must stop buying disposable diapers and use cloth diapers. Maria: But you forget that cloth diapers must be washed in hot water, which requires energy. Moreover, the resulting wastewater pollutes our rivers. When families use diaper services, diapers must be delivered by fuel-burning trucks that pollute the air and add to traffic congestion. Maria objects to Pedros argument by (A) claiming that Pedro overstates the negative evidence about disposable diapers in the course of his argument in favor of cloth diapers (B) indicating that Pedro draws a hasty conclusion, based on inadequate evidence about cloth diapers (C) pointing out that there is an ambiguous use of the word disposable in Pedros argument (D) demonstrating that cloth diapers are a far more serious threat to the environment than disposable diapers are (E) suggesting that the economic advantages of cloth diapers outweigh whatever environmental damage they may cause
IMO B,
Op A:- INCORRECT---for this to be the answer choice, Maria must state some positive aspects of disposable diaper, but she only talk about the negatives of cloth diaper Op B:- CORRECT----this is correct, pedro conclude that " people must stop buying disposable diapers and use cloth diapers." the statement of Maria states the negatives of using cloth diaper and therefore object the Pedro's conclusion of using cloth diapers. Op C:- INCORRECT---if this is the answer choice than Maria should state that How disposable diapers are actually NOT disposable Op D:- INCORRECT---Maria's argument contains some negative facts about the cloth diaper, but u can't say that those negative facts are more severe than those of disposable diaper. Op E:- INCORRECT--economic advantage?? irrelevant
In the united states, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given? (A) People who moved from one state to another when they retired moved a greater distance, on average, last year than such people did ten years ago. (B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago. (C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly over the past ten years. (D) The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago. (E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
In the united states, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given? (A) People who moved from one state to another when they retired moved a greater distance, on average, last year than such people did ten years ago. (B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago. (C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly over the past ten years. (D) The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago. (E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
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.
In the united states, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given? (A) People who moved from one state to another when they retired moved a greater distance, on average, last year than such people did ten years ago. (B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago. (C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly over the past ten years. (D) The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago. (E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
here ..even though if the percentage decreases ,but the people increases..it wont have much effect as in net the no of people settlingin florida has increased EX: 10% of 100 is 10, so now if people increased to 200 and percentage becomes 7% then no of people is 14...net increase of 4.....
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.
This one definetely seems to be a tricky one.....
so we would go by the method of eliminating the options...
Option B does not explain as it only tells abt advantages of solar plant, so its out
Option D is irrelavant..hence out
Option E does not convey the reason, hence out
Options A and C are mostly close...and one among them can be answer...
In Actual exam..if i had done other questions well...i would have left this one
Dude it would be better if u can quote some part of the question...
It would be even better if u can write a few sentences on what prompted u to choose a certain answer
A friendly suggestions and certainly NOM:lookround:
your suggestion taken and regarding option C....they haven't mentioned about which state, it may be any other state not necessarily florida right???....btw could you abbreviate NOM??!!
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not. The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions? (A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not. (B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. (C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors. (D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report. (E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
your suggestion taken and regarding option C....they haven't mentioned about which state, it may be any other state not necessarily florida right???....btw could you abbreviate NOM??!!
NOM stands for "NO OFFENCE MEANT"
if my guess in not wrong, u are not from the IT field....becoz this is the word we mostly see in the internal forums of an IT company(atleast in my company:lookround:)
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their
vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not. The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions? (A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not. (B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. (C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors. (D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report. (E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
I would go with option D ..which i finalised based on elimination techniques... Option A is out...becoz the claim cannot be substantiated option B is close and i feel its a logical extension of D option C is out becoz it should have been the reverse case option E is out ..again cannot be substantiated
so we would go by the method of eliminating the options...
Option B does not explain as it only tells abt advantages of solar plant, so its out
Option D is irrelavant..hence out
Option E does not convey the reason, hence out
Options A and C are mostly close...and one among them can be answer...
In Actual exam..if i had done other questions well...i would have left this one
i will go with option A
among the options A and C option A is more appropriate option C: increase in efficiency of oil-fired power plants doesn't stop from increasing the price of oil.
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.
This one definetely seems to be a tricky one.....
so we would go by the method of eliminating the options...
Option B does not explain as it only tells abt advantages of solar plant, so its out
Option D is irrelavant..hence out
Option E does not convey the reason, hence out
Options A and C are mostly close...and one among them can be answer...
In Actual exam..if i had done other questions well...i would have left this one
i will go with option A
among the options A and C option A is more appropriate option C: increase in efficiency of oil-fired power plants doesn't stop from increasing the price of oil.
A very valid point....i missed out on that logic...:cheerio:
A very valid point....i missed out on that logic...:cheerio:
lets wait for an OA from megha
I would go for option C because if the efficiency is increased,Overall cost of operation would go down,making it a better choice (rather cheaper) than their solar counterparts.As far as A option is concerned,cost of oil does not have a greater impact on the cost effectiveness than the whole technology being more efficient.Please correct me If I am wrong.
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not. The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions? (A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not. (B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. (C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors. (D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report. (E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not. The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions? (A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not. (B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. (C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors. (D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report. (E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
OA is in Bold ,but i cudn get it right for the first time π ,its kinda tricky .......
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.
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.
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their
vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not. The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions? (A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not. (B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. (C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors. (D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report. (E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report. my take is in bold!!
I didn get it for the frst time as its kinda tricky ,ans has got nthn to do with vehicles equipped with radar detectors !! please help....
Hey Cognizant, this is the OA as well, but I am unable to understand the logic behind this answer, can u explain how u arrived at this answer?
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their
vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not. The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions? (A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not. (B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. (C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors. (D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report. (E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report. my take is in bold!!
I am not able to understand the relationship between equipping the vehicle with the radar and ticketing. Are we to assume that whenever a driver gets ticketed, he has to mandatorily get his vehicle equipped with the radar? But, from the passage i am inclined to assume that the driver has a choice of not getting a radar fit on his vehicle.
I am getting totally confused.......am i thinking too much in detail?? Help !!!
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highwaysequipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not. The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions? . (B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.assumption here is those vehicles which dont get equipped with radar doesnt exceed the speed limit as many times as drivers who equip with radar. .
