Correct...thanks:)
How is the correct answer C?? I cannot understand it....
IMO C is incorrect
C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors
This means nothing to the argument since it talks about most of the donations, but we are not concerned about most of the donations, we are concerned about the fund raiser helping the expansion of donor base
I think the answer should be A, because rest all, B,D and E do the opposite.
Reason: A says that this college was as successful as others in attracting new donors. This essentially means that they did not do exceptionally well, which the 80% number masks. We should look at this statement for better insight "This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job"
So the fund raisers have not tried to raise the donor base, which was the case put forth in the argument.
Source of this question BTW?
silverlineinsky SaysCorrect...thanks:)
Hey Saussi
you have a valid point...I got it from one of my friends.
I think the answer would definitely be A..
Hey Saussi
you have a valid point...I got it from one of my friends.
I think the answer would definitely be A..
Hi ,
Plzz let us knw the source f this ques .............
i guess it should be C
How is the correct answer C?? I cannot understand it....
IMO C is incorrect
C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the universitys fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors
i think C should be the correct option because the people who contributed funds are the same people whom university contacted them for funds.in other words this means that more people didnt contribute to university this year than last year who contributed without the knowledge of university fund raisers.so that means donor base is same this year and contribution they made is from the same lot and success rate is based on same lot thus insuffcient canvassing effort.
where as in A. Smithtown University's fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fundraisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.it shows fundraisers are trying to gain contacts of more potential donors than was previously mentioned in other words the donor base is being increased here which rather refutes the arguement than strengthening arguement.
i dont think A is awnser C seems to be viable option
I think A is the correct option. the first line of the question says "Smithtown Universitys fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted".
Whereas the option C says "This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the universitys fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors".
There is a direct contradiction with the stimulus. So C is incorrect.
Rest B,D,E can be eliminated easily.
Hi guys...this ques is from one of the OG's. Pls help as i am not able to understand the explnation provided in OG's or elsewhere :
Theater Critic: The play La Finestrina, now at Central Theater, was written in Italy in the eighteenth century. The
director claims that this production is as similar to the original production as is possible in a modern theater.
Although the actor who plays Harlequin the clown gives a performance very reminiscent of the twentieth-century
American comedian Groucho Marx, Marxs comic style was very much within the comic acting tradition that had
begun in sixteenth-century Italy.
The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that
(A) modern audiences would fi nd it hard to tolerate certain characteristics of a historically accurate
performance of an eighteenth-century play
(B) Groucho Marx once performed the part of the character Harlequin in La Finestrina
(C) in the United States the training of actors in the twentieth century is based on principles that do not differ
radically from those that underlay the training of actors in eighteenth-century Italy
(D) the performance of the actor who plays Harlequin in La Finestrina does not serve as evidence against the
directors claim
(E) the director of La Finestrina must have advised the actor who plays Harlequin to model his performance on
comic performances of Groucho Marx
Also can somebody please explain what this phrase means :
"The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that"
Hi guys...this ques is from one of the OG's. Pls help as i am not able to understand the explnation provided in OG's or elsewhere :
Theater Critic: The play La Finestrina, now at Central Theater, was written in Italy in the eighteenth century. The
director claims that this production is as similar to the original production as is possible in a modern theater.
Although the actor who plays Harlequin the clown gives a performance very reminiscent of the twentieth-century
American comedian Groucho Marx, Marx's comic style was very much within the comic acting tradition that had
begun in sixteenth-century Italy.
The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that
(A) modern audiences would fi nd it hard to tolerate certain characteristics of a historically accurate
performance of an eighteenth-century play
(B) Groucho Marx once performed the part of the character Harlequin in La Finestrina
(C) in the United States the training of actors in the twentieth century is based on principles that do not differ
radically from those that underlay the training of actors in eighteenth-century Italy
(D) the performance of the actor who plays Harlequin in La Finestrina does not serve as evidence against the
director's claim
(E) the director of La Finestrina must have advised the actor who plays Harlequin to model his performance on
comic performances of Groucho Marx
Also can somebody please explain what this phrase means :
"The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that"
Hi,
let us first see what the passage is saying.
It introduces a play that is currently being showcased and says that it was written in the 18th century.
Then it gives the directors claim that the production is as similar as possible to the original.
Now comes the important part... here it says that the acting style of the actor (say xyz) who plays the clown is similar to 20th century comedian Marx. (hence this could be considered as a proof that some acts might not be similar to 18th century style). however, it states that Marx's acting style itself was within the comic acting tradition that began in the 16th century. (so this includes the 18th century)
it is a round abt way of saying that the acting style of xyz was within the acting tradition that began in the 16th century.
Now comes ur question: the "considerations given" would point to the stated example of xyz being mentioned... it is asking y is there a special mention of the case?
it seems to be an example that might seem to contradict the directors claim.
as in... the director claims that the play is as similar to the 18th century original as possible... but the example gives that the clown acts similar to a 20th century comedian.
however, since the 20th century actor himself follows the trends from the 16th century style, the example doesn't refute the claim.
when we look at the options, we see that only D states this point. hence the answer.
hope this helps...
Theater Critic: The play La Finestrina, now at Central Theater, was written in Italy in the eighteenth century. The
director claims that this production is as similar to the original production as is possible in a modern theater.
.....
The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that
(A) modern audiences would fi nd it hard to tolerate certain characteristics of a historically accurate
performance of an eighteenth-century play
"The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that"
option d is it ?
The current proposal to give college students a broader choice in planning their own courses of study should be abandoned. The students who are supporting the proposal will never be satisfied, no matter what requirements are established. Some of these students have reached their third year without declaring a major. One first-year student has failed to complete four required courses. Several others have indicated a serious indifference to grades and intellectual achievement.
A flaw in the argument is that it does which one of the following?
(A) avoids the issue by focusing on supporters of the proposal
(B) argues circularly by assuming the conclusion is true in stating the premises
(C) fails to define the critical term satisfied
(D) distorts the proposal advocated by opponents
(E) users the term student equivocally
answer acc to me is A)avoids the issue by focusing on supporters of the proposal.
The current proposal to give college students a broader choice in planning their own courses of study should be abandoned. The students who are supporting the proposal will never be satisfied, no matter what requirements are established. Some of these students have reached their third year without declaring a major. One first-year student has failed to complete four required courses. Several others have indicated a serious indifference to grades and intellectual achievement.
A flaw in the argument is that it does which one of the following?
(A) avoids the issue by focusing on supporters of the proposal
(B) argues circularly by assuming the conclusion is true in stating the premises
(C) fails to define the critical term "satisfied"
(D) distorts the proposal advocated by opponents
(E) users the term "student" equivocally
My take is C ......
The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is certainly imprecise, because we are not sure how different from us something might be and still count as "intelligent life." Yet we cannot just decide to define "intelligent life" in some more precise way since it is likely that we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.
The passage, if seen as an objection to an antecedent claim, challenges that claim by:
(A) showing the claim to be irrelevant to the issue at hand
(B) citing examples that fail to fit proposed definition of "intelligent life"
(C) claiming that "intelligent life" cannot be adequately defined
(D) arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductive
(E) maintaining that the claim is not supported by the available evidence
My take is C...
The current proposal to give college students a broader choice in planning their own courses of study should be abandoned. The students who are supporting the proposal will never be satisfied, no matter what requirements are established. Some of these students have reached their third year without declaring a major. One first-year student has failed to complete four required courses. Several others have indicated a serious indifference to grades and intellectual achievement.
A flaw in the argument is that it does which one of the following?
(A) avoids the issue by focusing on supporters of the proposalThe question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is certainly imprecise, because we are not sure how different from us something might be and still count as intelligent life. Yet we cannot just decide to define intelligent life in some more precise way since it is likely that we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.
The passage, if seen as an objection to an antecedent claim, challenges that claim by:
(D) arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductive
OA is in bold!!
anwer is c
The current proposal to give college students a broader choice in planning their own courses of study should be abandoned. The students who are supporting the proposal will never be satisfied, no matter what requirements are established. Some of these students have reached their third year without declaring a major. One first-year student has failed to complete four required courses. Several others have indicated a serious indifference to grades and intellectual achievement.
A flaw in the argument is that it does which one of the following?
(A) avoids the issue by focusing on supporters of the proposalThe question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is certainly imprecise, because we are not sure how different from us something might be and still count as intelligent life. Yet we cannot just decide to define intelligent life in some more precise way since it is likely that we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.
The passage, if seen as an objection to an antecedent claim, challenges that claim by:
(D) arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductive
OA is in bold!!
i think option c also challeges the claim....pls suggest
.
A scientific theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations in terms of a model that is simple enough to contain only a few elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. For example, Aristotles cosmological theory, which claimed that everything was made out of four elementsearth, air, fire, and watersatisfied the first requirement, but it did not make any definite prediction. Thus, Aristotles cosmological theory was not a good theory.
If all the statements in the passage are true, each of the following must also be true EXCEPT:
(A) Prediction about the results of future observations must be made by any good scientific theory.
(B) Observation of physical phenomena was not a major concern in Aristotles cosmological theory.
(C) Four elements can be the basis of a scientific model that is simple enough to meet the simplicity criterion of a good theory.
(D) A scientific model that contains many elements is not a good theory.
(E) Aristotles cosmological theory described a large class of observations in terms of only four elements
i think it is OPTION B....... Observation of physical phenomena was not a major concern in Aristotles cosmological theory.
Physician: The patient is suffering either from disease X or else from disease Y, but there is no available test for distinguishing X from Y. Therefore, since there is an effective treatment for Y but no treatment for X, we must act on the assumption that the patient has a case of Y.
The physicians reasoning could be based on which one of the following principles?
(A) In treating a patient who has one or the other of two diseases, it is more important to treat the diseases than to determine which of the two diseases the patient has.
(B) If circumstances beyond a decision makers control will affect the outcome of the decision makers actions, the decision maker must assume that circumstances are unfavorable.
(C) When the soundness of a strategy depends on the truth of a certain assumption, the first step in putting the strategy into effect must be to test the truth of this assumption.
(D) When success is possible only if a circumstance beyond ones control is favorable, then ones strategy must be based on the assumption that this circumstance is in fact favorable.
(E) When only one strategy carries the possibility of success, circumstances must as much as possible be changed to fit this strategy.
ANSWER IS E....When only one strategy carries the possibility of success, circumstances must as much as possible be changed to fit this strategy
No :(
The answer is D... Someone please explain if u can..
In the case study, the researcher is going only one way i.e how immune system is causing effects on mental & physical health. He has already somewhere taken into consideration that the things wont go visa versa i.e 'there will be no effect of mental health on immune system.' T'fore this itself becomes the assumption of the researcher, hence option D.
I hope you are satisfied with this.
People who take what others regard as a ridiculous position should not bother to say, "I mean every word!" For either their position truly is ridiculous, in which case insisting that they are serious about it only exposes them to deeper embarrassment, or else their position has merit, in which case they should meet disbelief with rational argument rather than with assurances of their sincerity.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?
(A) A practice that has been denounced as poor practice should not be defended on the grounds that "this is how we have always done it." If the practice is a poor one, so much the worse that it has been extensively used; if it is not poor one, there must be a better reason for engaging in it than inertia.
(B) People who are asked why they eat some of the unusual foods they eat should not answer, "because that is what I like." This sort of answer will sound either naive or evasive and thus will satisfy no one.
(C) People whose taste in clothes is being criticized should not replay, "Every penny I spent on these clothes I earned honestly." For the issue raise by the critics is not how the money was come by but rather whether it was spent wisely.
(D) Scholars who champion unpopular new theories should not assume that the widespread rejection of their ideas shows that they "must be on the right track." The truth is that few theories of any consequence are either wholly right or wholly wrong and thus there is no substitute for patient works in ascertaining which parts are right.
(E) People who set themselves goals that others denounce as overly ambitious do little to silence their critics if they say, "I can accomplish this if anyone can." Rather, those people should either admit that their critics are right or not dignify the criticism with any reply.
IMO - E
whats the OA?
People who take what others regard as a ridiculous position should not bother to say, I mean every word! For either their position truly is ridiculous, in which case insisting that they are serious about it only exposes them to deeper embarrassment, or else their position has merit, in which case they should meet disbelief with rational argument rather than with assurances of their sincerity.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?
(A) A practice that has been denounced as poor practice should not be defended on the grounds that this is how we have always done it. If the practice is a poor one, so much the worse that it has been extensively used; if it is not poor one, there must be a better reason for engaging in it than inertia.
OA is in bold!!
can u please post the explanation as well?? actually i had selected A first then edited the post to mark E after thinking.... guess as usual i interpreted too much...
Cigarette companies claim that manufacturing both low- and high-nicotine cigarettes allows smokers to choose
how much nicotine they want. However, a recent study has shown that the levels of nicotine found in the blood of
smokers who smoke one pack of cigarettes per day are identical at the end of a days worth of smoking, whatever
the level of nicotine in the cigarettes they smoke. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the
finding of the nicotine study?
A. Blood cannot absorb more nicotine per day than that found in the smoke from a package of the lowest-nicotine
cigarettes available.
B. Smokers of the lowest-nicotine cigarettes available generally smoke more cigarettes per day than smokers of
high-nicotine cigarettes.
C. Most nicotine is absorbed into the blood of a smoker even if it is delivered in smaller quantities.
D. The level of tar in cigarettes is higher in low-nicotine cigarettes than it is in some high-nicotine cigarettes.
E. When taking in nicotine by smoking cigarettes is discontinued, the level of nicotine in the blood decreases steadily.