From Kaplan800: According to some sports historians, professional tennis players develop unique playing styles that result from a combination of the peculiarities of each player's physical attributes and the influence of coaches during their early adaptation to the game. But when the increase in strength and endurance of modem players is discounted, it becomes readily apparent that the playing styles of the current crop of professional tennis players are no different from the styles of players from previous generations. Clearly, there is a universally efficient tennis style to which all professional tennis players conform. The argument above is most weakened by which of the following statements? (A) The differences in physical attributes among tennis players are even more pronounced than the sports historians believe. (B) Few current professional tennis players are familiar with the professional tennis players of fifty years ago. (C) The increased strength of current tennis players contributes more to the development of individual playing styles than does increased endurance. (D) All of the early coaches of today's professional tennis players were professional tennis players themselves earlier in their lives. (E) Weight training and greater attention to diet are the primary factors in the increased strength and stamina of the current generation of professional tennis players.
argument says that there is universal style to which all player conform weaken --> which contradicts this.
A -- doesn't weaken as the physical attributes need to be discounted B -- just being familiar doesnt give say anything to negate the argument C -- though it says that increased strength contributes to development of style, there is nothing to negate the argument that there is one universal style. D -- this helps to say that because the coaches are players once upon a time the players whom they coached got their respective coach style -> so there is no universal style. E -- talks nothing about style - out of context.
my answer - D
hey guys if you don't mind can you please post the reasons for choosing your answer and not others, it helps me a lot.
According to some sports historians, professional tennis players develop unique playing styles that result from a combination of the peculiarities of each player's physical attributes and the influence of coaches during their early adaptation to the game. But when the increase in strength and endurance of modem players is discounted, it becomes readily apparent that the playing styles of the current crop of professional tennis players are no different from the styles of players from previous generations. Clearly, there is a universally efficient tennis style to which all professional tennis players conform. The argument above is most weakened by which of the following statements? (A) The differences in physical attributes among tennis players are even more pronounced than the sports historians believe. (B) Few current professional tennis players are familiar with the professional tennis players of fifty years ago. (C) The increased strength of current tennis players contributes more to the development of individual playing styles than does increased endurance. (D) All of the early coaches of today's professional tennis players were professional tennis players themselves earlier in their lives....OA (E) Weight training and greater attention to diet are the primary factors in the increased strength and stamina of the current generation of professional tennis players.
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates. Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate. Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Hart's reply? (A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration. (B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. (C) It is consistent with Choi's claim. (D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim. (E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates.
Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate. Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Hart's reply?
(A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration. (B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. (C) It is consistent with Choi's claim. (D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim. (E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.
By POE, will go with C. Got a little confused after reading the word consistent. Had to check the meaning of consistent again, to be absolutely sure. Consistent is used here in the form "compatible" Both the statements of Choi and Hart do not contradict each other, that we can obviously figure out. But they do not strengthen each other either, so they are almost independent statements compatible with each other !
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates. Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate. Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Hart's reply? (A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration. (B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. (C) It is consistent with Choi's claim. (D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim. (E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.
frankly speaking .. probably one of the toughest ive faced in a long time !! and frankly again .. m not sure of my answer .
okay one thing .. it says that over 70% of the current lot's parents blah blah .. but it is possible that the only population with doctorates , all their children got a doctorate - which now corresponds to 30% . so what if all the rest had their parents with doctorates ?! it is not exaggerating.
i have my own reasons for the rest too. i find it complicated to xplain :D
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates. Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate. Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Hart's reply? (A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration. (B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. (C) It is consistent with Choi's claim. (D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim. (E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.
I think it's E.
See, Hart is clearly trying to refute Choi's claim by using 'But' at the beginning of his sentence, so, option C and D are out, because they say Hart is in a way supporting Choi's claim.
When we think about what Choi has said and what Hart has, we can see that Choi means that having a doctorate-owning parent is sufficient to increase the chances of the child getting a doctorate. Whereas, Hart's statement seems to point to an assumption that having a doctorate-owning parent is a necessary condition for the child to earn a doctorate.
So makes it 'E' in my opinion.
kero
(Should I Really Give my name ? Really )
4651
My answer e, hart is clearly trying to refute choi`s claim, although both claims can be true
One reason why European music has had such a strong influence throughout the world, and why it is a sophisticated achievement, is that over time the original function of the music-whether ritual, dance, or worship-gradually became an aspect of its style, not its defining force. Dance music could stand independent of dance, for example, and sacred music independent of religious worship, because each composition has so much internal coherence that the music ultimately depends on nothing but itself. The claims made above are compatible with each of the following EXCEPT: (A) African music has had a more powerful impact on the world than European music has had. (B) European military and economic expansionism partially explains the global influence of European music. (C) The original functions of many types of Chinese music are no longer their defining forces. (D) Music that is unintelligible when it is presented independently of its original function tends to be the most sophisticated music. (E) Some works of art lose their appeal when they are presented to serve a function other than their original one.
Take in bolds!
kero
(Should I Really Give my name ? Really )
4654
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates.
Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate. Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Hart's reply?
(A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration. (B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. (C) It is consistent with Choi's claim. (D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim. (E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.
Hi The answer should be C. Although it may look like that hart is weakning Choi's statement but that's not the case. What Choi is saying is that the likelyhood is more--- i.e the chances are more not the actual number of students in with the degree.. So even if 70% of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate, it does not weaker her logic.
One more point -- What is the source of this question. Looks like this one is from LSAT book... If this one is from LSAT then I request you all to first master the CR related to GMAT and then jump to LSAT question. Directly trying LSAT questions will do no good to any of us.
Hi The answer should be C. Although it may look like that hart is weakning Choi's statement but that's not the case. What Choi is saying is that the likelyhood is more--- i.e the chances are more not the actual number of students in with the degree.. So even if 70% of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate, it does not weaker her logic.
One more point -- What is the source of this question. Looks like this one is from LSAT book... If this one is from LSAT then I request you all to first master the CR related to GMAT and then jump to LSAT question. Directly trying LSAT questions will do no good to any of us.
But for the Hart's claim to be consistent with choi's, Hart should say something that is similar to what choi says, which is not what I see in your explanation.
You explanation sounds like what Hart and Choi are saying is unrelated to each other, though you do have a point.
For every 100 automobile drivers who are involved in a collision due to brake failure, 1 will be seriously injured. A new safety feature exists that is nearly 100 percent successful in preventing collisions due to brake failure. Because the risk of serious injury from malfunction of the new safety feature is one out of 10,000, it is clearly safer for automobile drivers to have this new safety feature installed than not. Which of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument? (A) The probability that an automobile driver will be involved in a collision due to brake failure (B) The probability that an automobile driver will be involved in any sort of collision (C) The number of automobile collisions that occur for reasons other than brake failure (D) The number of new safety features being released that prevent other types of collisions (E) The total number of automobile drivers that have had this new safety feature installed
For every 100 automobile drivers who are involved in a collision due to brake failure, 1 will be seriously injured. A new safety feature exists that is nearly 100 percent successful in preventing collisions due to brake failure. Because the risk of serious injury from malfunction of the new safety feature is one out of 10,000, it is clearly safer for automobile drivers to have this new safety feature installed than not. Which of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument? (A) The probability that an automobile driver will be involved in a collision due to brake failure (B) The probability that an automobile driver will be involved in any sort of collision (C) The number of automobile collisions that occur for reasons other than brake failure (D) The number of new safety features being released that prevent other types of collisions (E) The total number of automobile drivers that have had this new safety feature installed
quite obvious that answer is A as this is the only choice that speaks about collisions happening due to break failure
For every 100 automobile drivers who are involved in a collision due to brake failure, 1 will be seriously injured. A new safety feature exists that is nearly 100 percent successful in preventing collisions due to brake failure. Because the risk of serious injury from malfunction of the new safety feature is one out of 10,000, it is clearly safer for automobile drivers to have this new safety feature installed than not. Which of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument? (A) The probability that an automobile driver will be involved in a collision due to brake failure (B) The probability that an automobile driver will be involved in any sort of collision (C) The number of automobile collisions that occur for reasons other than brake failure (D) The number of new safety features being released that prevent other types of collisions (E) The total number of automobile drivers that have had this new safety feature installed
Ans:A....C,D,E doesnt seem relevant...B doesnt talk about brake failure and seems to be too much generic.The driver must be concerned about the probability of collissions due to brake failures.
For every 100 automobile drivers who are involved in a collision due to brake failure, 1 will be seriously injured. A new safety feature exists that is nearly 100 percent successful in preventing collisions due to brake failure. Because the risk of serious injury from malfunction of the new safety feature is one out of 10,000, it is clearly safer for automobile drivers to have this new safety feature installed than not. Which of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument? (A) The probability that an automobile driver will be involved in a collision due to brake failure (B) The probability that an automobile driver will be involved in any sort of collision (C) The number of automobile collisions that occur for reasons other than brake failure (D) The number of new safety features being released that prevent other types of collisions (E) The total number of automobile drivers that have had this new safety feature installed
Option A. Reason -- we can safely eliminate option B,C, & D -- as they are irrelvant. option E although talks about the New Safety feature, it does not give us any information about the effectivness of implementing this feature.-- Eliminate
For every 100 automobile drivers who are involved in a collision due to brake failure, 1 will be seriously injured. A new safety feature exists that is nearly 100 percent successful in preventing collisions due to brake failure. Because the risk of serious injury from malfunction of the new safety feature is one out of 10,000, it is clearly safer for automobile drivers to have this new safety feature installed than not. Which of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument?
(C) The number of automobile collisions that occur for reasons other than brake failure.if there is other reason for automobile collision oher than break failure argument falls apart. OA is in bold!!
WRONG!!!! -- I had to search for sources after I saw your version of OA... C is Plain WRONG.
For every 100 automobile drivers who are involved in a collision due to brake failure, 1 will be seriously injured. A new safety feature exists that is nearly 100 percent successful in preventing collisions due to brake failure. Because the risk of serious injury from malfunction of the new safety feature is one out of 10,000, it is clearly safer for automobile drivers to have this new safety feature installed than not. Which of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument?
(C) The number of automobile collisions that occur for reasons other than brake failure.if there is other reason for automobile collision oher than break failure argument falls apart. OA is in bold!!
Reason I think option C is wrong is that-- the argument which C is presenting is not at all relevant to the main argument.
This question is talking ONLY about accident due to Break Failure and nothing else. Accidents due to other reason have no effect on this conclusion.
WRONG!!!! -- I had to search for sources after I saw your version of OA... C is Plain WRONG.
Answer is A. dude though answer A is mentioned but according to standard GMAC protocl this would be falsified logic why at all i would assume probability of collision to be considered to be true due to accidents what if other factors lead to accident.prove your point if other factors wouldn't in any way be possible to go about accidents.having discussed with kaplan mentors and according to GMAC standrads optiion C resembles the logic required for evaluvation.
Cognizant bhai, check this post: Evaluate A Kaplan instructor is the one who has provided a very simple explanation.
And your explanation is not decipherable at all, I could not understand anything even after reading your post 2-3 times. Can you explain from your own logic why A should be correct. Let us forget GMAC and Kaplan, let plain logic be the rule here.