Freud's theories of the workings of the mind, while brilliant for their day, were formulated before most of this century's great advances in neurophysiology and biochemistry. Today, we have a far deeper understanding of the biological components of thought, emotion, and behavior than was dreamed of eighty years ago. It would be foolish to continue parroting Freud's psychological theories as if these advances had never occurred.
It can be inferred from the passage above that the author would be most likely to favor
(A) the abandonment of most of Freud's theories
(B) a greater reliance on biological rather than psychological explanations of behavior
(C) a critical reexamination of Freud's place in the history of psychology
(D) a reexamination of Freud's theories in the light of contemporary biology
(E) increased financial support for studies in neurophysiology and biochemistry
A company gives each employee the opportunity to invest from each paycheck upto 8 percent of his or her salary in a personal,interest accruing retirement fund. The company automatically contributes equivalent of 2% of an employeee's paycheck to such a fund, regardless of whether or not the employee invests anything, and will also contribute an amount equivalent to any investment the employee elects to make upto 3% of the employee's paycheck.
If the statements above are true, which of the following are also true?
A) The company wishes to deter its employees from investing more than 3% of their paychecks in the retirement fund.
B) If the employee elects to invest 4% of his paycheck in the retirement fund, the total value of each investment, including company's contribution, will be equivalent to 9% of his paycheck.
C)An employee gains nothing by investing more than 3% of his paycheck in the retirement fund
D)If the total value of each investment in certain employee's retirement fund,including company contributions, is the equivalent of 4% of his paycheck, then he has elected to invest 2% of his paycheck.
E)the smaller the amount of his own paycheck an employee invests in the retirement fund, the greater the amount that the company will contribute to the fund.
My take is in bold
a) Company sees no reason to put a cap after 3% as 3% is the maximum the company is willing to invest
b)If employee contributes 4 % then total investment in fund is : 2% ( fixed) + 4% (employee) + 3%(max the company is willing to pay) = 9%
c)This is too inferential, because if he invests more than 3% he also gets accrued interests which is not accounted here.
d)if total = 4% = (2% + x + x) => x =1% and not 2%
x= investment by employee and the same by the employer
e)totally illogical..no company would do that. That is a loss for the company !
case is similar to the provident fund investments we make. I just hope the answer is correct 😁
cognizant_81 SaysA company gives each employee the opportunity to invest from each paycheck upto 8 percent of his or her salary in a personal,interest accruing retirement fund.
D)If the total value of each investment in certain employee's retirement fund,including company contributions, is the equivalent of 4% of his paycheck, then he has elected to invest 2% of his paycheck.
cognizant_81 SaysFreud's theories of the workings of the mind, while brilliant for their day, were formulated before most of this century's great advances in neurophysiology and biochemistry.
(D) a reexamination of Freud's theories in the light of contemporary biology
Of 2,500 people who survived a first heart attack, those who did not smoke had their first heart attack at a median age of 62. However, of those 2,500, people who smoked two packs of cigarettes a day had their first heart attack at a median age of 51. On the basis of this information, it can be concluded that nonsmokers tend to have a first heart attack eleven years later than do people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day.
The conclusion is incorrectly drawn from the information given because this information does not include
(A) the relative severity of heart attacks suffered by smokers and nonsmokers
(B) the nature of the different medical treatments that smokers and nonsmokers received after they had survived their first heart attack
(C) how many of the 2,500 people studied suffered a second heart attack
(D) the earliest age at which a person who smoked two packs a day had his or her first heart attack
(E) data on people who did not survive a first heart attack
People who had the first heart attack = People who live on after their first heart attack + People who died after their first heart attack
But the question statement does not include the bold part above. Hence E.
Here goes:
"...However, of those 2,500, people who smoked two packs of cigarettes a day had their first heart attack at a median age of 51.."
Does the above sentence mean that the same set of 2500 comprised of both smokers and non-smokers? What if 2499 of them were non-smokers and the remaining one was a smoker. The conclusion drawn then would become statistically absurd...and the right answer should include "Data on how many of the 2500 were smokers/non-smokers"
Am sorry, which of the options has this information that you have suggested? Or are you suggesting this option would have been better than any of the given 5 options?
Obviously there could be umpteen other options which could have also qualified to be correct, but we have to choose among the options given. For example, following option would have been correct as well:
Data on how many of smokers were drunkards a well.
If most smokers were drunkards as well, and since drinking also contributes to heart attack, we then cannot attribute heart attacks directly to smoking. Hence we could not have drawn the conclusion based on the information given.
Thanks..but what I said was that the correct answer should have included what can be qualified as a very obvious statistical premise given that they are asking us to find the reason why the conclusion drawn is incorrect.. I am actually not suggesting we include something that doesn't find a mention in the question statement and/or is far-fetched for eg; people being smokers or drunkards or whatever. The bold part above would be an assumption ergo doesnt qualify as a suitable analogy, whereas the inclusion I was suggesting is well within scope of the argument.
Apologies if I have misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
-> impacts
physical immunity->mental health
therefore, physical treatment ->mental health
Sorry mates the above reply was for question on page 1.
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.
Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
My answer in Bold
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.
Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
>> My Answer D
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.
Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?
My take:
((B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.
Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
My answer is in Bold.
cognizant_81 SaysSome environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.
Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
The part of the question statement that actually talks about the non-economic justification is highlighted to bold above and that sentence starts with "Many environmentalists....".
Folks I need help in CR. On an average I spend 2.5 min per question with an accuracy of 80%. This is really troubling me. I want to increase my speed in this portion. Though I am practicing questions but I guess i am lacking somewhere. Any tips/tricks/general pointers for eliminating options or for selecting options are most welcome.
Please help !! :banghead::banghead:
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.
Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
B looks most appropriate ..
Hey guys,
New to this group, so a big "Hello" to everybody around. Coming to the point...
Paragraph in discussion, says in the highlighted part as "Many environmentalists" , then why cant "D" be a right answer?
"Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so"
Knowledge of an ancient language is essential for reading original ancient documents. Most ancient historical documents, however, have been translated into modern languages, so scholars of ancient history can read them for their research without learning ancient languages. Therefore, aspirants to careers as ancient history scholars no longer need to take the time to learn ancient languages.
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
(A) It concludes that something is never necessary on the grounds that it is not always necessary.
(B) A statement of fact is treated as if it were merely a statement of opinion.
(C) The conclusion is no more than a restatement of the evidence provides as support of that conclusion.
(D) The judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their expertise is irrelevant.
(E) Some of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other evidences provided.
Good one! My pick is Option (A)
cognizant_81 SaysKnowledge of an ancient language is
(A) It concludes that something is never necessary on the grounds that it is not always necessary.
Hi,
I may be posting this to wrong place and if I am doing so, I am sorry.
I have got 17 wrongs out of total 124 while preparing from OG12 critical reasoning section in first go.
Please tell me how am I faring at this point if I am aiming a score above 720? and what to do to improve?
Thanks
Saurabh