For almost five thousand years after its beginning 2.5 million years ago, Homo habilis roamed the earth, lived in semi-permanent camps, gathered food and shared their economy.
A. For almost five thousand years after its beginning 2.5 million years ago, B. Beginning 2.5 million years ago for a period of almost five thousand years, C. Beginning a period of almost five thousand years 2.5 million years ago, D. During five thousand years, a period beginning 2.5 million years ago, E. Over a period of five thousand years beginning 2.5 million years ago,
In A, "its" is can can refer to 5 thous. yrs or homohablis, so unclear. In B n C, starting with beginning means, homohablis are beginning.. In D, "a period" is not needed So, E is answer
"Is it wrong for doctors to lie about therir patient's illness? aren't doctors just like other people we hire to do a job for us ? surely,we would not tolerate not being told the truth about the condition of our automobile from our mechanic we hired to fix it,or the condition of our roof from the carpenter we hired to repair it .just as these workers would be guilty of of violating their good faith contracts with us if they were to do this ,doctors who lie to their patients about theri illness violate these contracts as well and this clearly wrong"
what is the conclusion
1>Doctors who lie to their patients abt their illness violate their good faith contracts with their patients 2>doctors often lie to their patients abt their illnesses 3>doc. are just hired workers like mechanics and carpenters 4>it is wrong for docs. to lie abt their patients illnesses 5>docs like mechanics enter into good faith contracts with their patients
i think it is 3 but answer given is 4 ... but why ?? the author himself looks confused.... the very first line is "IS IT WRONG ?" the author is not sure and then in the last line he says "...and this is clearly wrong" so what are u supposed to make of it ??
Look, this is not an appropriate thread to post this query. I think you should have posted it to Critical Reasoning thread.
This is a complex argument with many conclusions:
Author's argument in the first line is his vague conclusion too. This whole argument is depended upon clearing the author's doubt given by first line-"Is it wrong for doctors to lie about therir patient's illness". He has given premises to clear his doubt :
Premise/ Conclusion - aren't doctors just like other people we hire to do a job for us.
This premise clears that author is telling that Doctors are like other peoples whom we hired to do our job. so anything which is applied to latter will be applied to former too. Now he gave certain facts/ premise to prove this conclusion/premise:
Premise 1 - If a mechanic who fix our automobile would not tell us the truth about the automobile then
Conclusion to Premise 1 - We would not tolerate.
Premise 2 - Same as Premise 2, only automobile is changed with room and conclusion is a same we would not accept.
Supporting Conclusion to the whole argument - "just as these workers would be guilty of of violating their good faith contracts with us if they were to do this ,doctors who lie to their patients about theri illness violate these contracts as well and this clearly wrong".
Join all of them and try to give the answer to the first line which is the MAIN CONCLUSION to the argument.
For almost five thousand years after its beginning 2.5 million years ago, Homo habilis roamed the earth, lived in semi-permanent camps, gathered food and shared their economy.
A. For almost five thousand years after its beginning 2.5 million years ago, B. Beginning 2.5 million years ago for a period of almost five thousand years, C. Beginning a period of almost five thousand years 2.5 million years ago, D. During five thousand years, a period beginning 2.5 million years ago, E. Over a period of five thousand years beginning 2.5 million years ago,
a. misleading 'its' - 'its' cant refer to homohabilis. ('their' would have made option a and option e close) b. misplaced modifiers c. misplaced modifiers d. misplaced modifiers e. looks perfect. shd be the correct answer
Both the questions are right in its own way - the first one says it was not covered at all (presumably by TV) and the second one says it was covered partially.
Aru
thanks Doc arun, I also thought the same, but these were the two choices in a question from which only 1 is right. and it was the second choice (although not all....). So i was confused. anyway, now i got the difference is because of the ambigious meaning first option conveys. so i need to focus more on such meaning related questions.
That the new managing editor rose from the publication's "soft" news sections to a leadership position is more of a landmark in the industry than her being a woman. (A) her being a woman (B) being a woman is (C) her womanhood (D) that she was a woman (E) that she is a woman
thanks Doc arun, I also thought the same, but these were the two choices in a question from which only 1 is right. and it was the second choice (although not all....). So i was confused. anyway, now i got the difference is because of the ambigious meaning first option conveys. so i need to focus more on such meaning related questions.
thanks...
Correct - in such cases stick to the original meaning of the sentence (ofcourse provided it makes sense).
That the new managing editor rose from the publications soft news sections to a leadership position is more of a landmark in the industry than her being a woman. (A) her being a woman (B) being a woman is (C) her womanhood (D) that she was a woman (E) that she is a woman
Hey Dude, is this OG's question ? IMO E Post OA then I will give my explanation
That the new managing editor rose from the publications soft news sections to a leadership position is more of a landmark in the industry than her being a woman. (A) her being a woman (B) being a woman is (C) her womanhood (D) that she was a woman (E) that she is a woman
good one... application of parallelism gives "that .......more of a landmark than that she is a woman" answer should be E. that is necessary among answer choices so that rules out A,B,C. D uses past tense unnecessary.
That the new managing editor rose from the publications soft news sections to a leadership position is more of a landmark in the industry than her being a woman. (A) her being a woman (B) being a woman is (C) her womanhood (D) that she was a woman (E) that she is a woman
For almost five thousand years after its beginning 2.5 million years ago, Homo habilis roamed the earth, lived in semi-permanent camps, gathered food and shared their economy.
A. For almost five thousand years after its beginning 2.5 million years ago, B. Beginning 2.5 million years ago for a period of almost five thousand years, C. Beginning a period of almost five thousand years 2.5 million years ago, D. During five thousand years, a period beginning 2.5 million years ago, E. Over a period of five thousand years beginning 2.5 million years ago,
OA is E. A --> Usage of 'its' ambiguous. B and C---> 'Beginning' is less clear and direct. The usage of 'Over a period.....beginning..' in E is the more idiomatic than that in D.
1.The commissiors office of compliance, inspections, and investigations plans to intensify its scrutiny of stock analysts to investigate not only whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are paid for their work by a firms investment. (a) to investigate not only whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are (b) to investigate not only whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also if conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or they are (c) to not only investigate whether or not research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also if conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are (d) not only to investigate whether or not research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are (e) not only to investigate whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when
1.The commissiors office of compliance, inspections, and investigations plans to intensify its scrutiny of stock analysts to investigate not only whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are paid for their work by a firms investment. (a) to investigate not only whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are (b) to investigate not only whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also if conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or they are (c) to not only investigate whether or not research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also if conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are (d) not only to investigate whether or not research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are (e) not only to investigate whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when
good one indeed. C and D can be ruled out because of use of whether or not. E changes the meaning by conveying that "The commissiors office plans to intensify its scrutiny of stock analysts not only to investigate but also to do something something..." that leaves us with A and B. B lacks the parallelism in second clause "but also if conflicts result when ....or they are" it is more clear if used "...or when they are". The answer should be A. please post OA.
1.The commissiors office of compliance, inspections, and investigations plans to intensify its scrutiny of stock analysts to investigate not only whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are paid for their work by a firms investment. (a) to investigate not only whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are (b) to investigate not only whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also if conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or they are (c) to not only investigate whether or not research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also if conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are (d) not only to investigate whether or not research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are (e) not only to investigate whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when
shd be A.. not only whether......... but also whether........
but did not understand ur reasoning for rejcting B..Can you explain further how parallelism is lackin...
thanks
MissionPGPX Says
good one indeed. C and D can be ruled out because of use of whether or not. E changes the meaning by conveying that "The commissiors office plans to intensify its scrutiny of stock analysts not only to investigate but also to do something something..." that leaves us with A and B. B lacks the parallelism in second clause "but also if conflicts result when ....or they are" it is more clear if used "...or when they are". The answer should be A. please post OA.
OA for the previous question was option A (missionPGPX has explained it b'fully)
now try this..
1.The exigencies of dramatic art, as shown even by the history plays of Shakespeare, makes the foreshortening of dramatized historical events inevitable. a makes the foreshortening of dramatized historical events inevitable b made dramatized historical events inevitably foreshortened c make the foreshortening of dramatized historical events inevitable d has inevitably foreshortened dramatized historical events e inevitably foreshorten dramatized historical events
OA for the previous question was option A (missionPGPX has explained it b'fully)
now try this..
1.The exigencies of dramatic art, as shown even by the history plays of Shakespeare, makes the foreshortening of dramatized historical events inevitable. a makes the foreshortening of dramatized historical events inevitable b made dramatized historical events inevitably foreshortened c make the foreshortening of dramatized historical events inevitable d has inevitably foreshortened dramatized historical events e inevitably foreshorten dramatized historical events
First i didnt know the meaning of exigencies and i looked into dictionary. It means urgent need. So the urgent need of art makes the foreshortening inevitable. Sounds perfect but may be not. B changes the tense. C has sub-verb agreement error. D is plausible but E is awkward. A means forshortening is inevitable because of the urgent need of dramatic art and D says the exigencies has inevitably forshortened dramatized historical events. I will go with A to preserve original meaning but i am not sure this time. I hope i am right in my line of reasoning.
OA for the previous question was option A (missionPGPX has explained it b'fully)
now try this..
1.The exigencies of dramatic art, as shown even by the history plays of Shakespeare, makes the foreshortening of dramatized historical events inevitable. a makes the foreshortening of dramatized historical events inevitable b made dramatized historical events inevitably foreshortened c make the foreshortening of dramatized historical events inevitable d has inevitably foreshortened dramatized historical events e inevitably foreshorten dramatized historical events
"Exigencies are ( Iam using are ) undoubtedly plural, singular is exigency so A and D are out. A used "makes" and D used - "has". Subject - Verb agreement.
Now this is a tricky question fight is among B, C and E
I don't think past tense is required in this sentence as this will remain a fact, as shown by Shakespear' play and there is no mention of time during which these exigencies foreshorten the "dramatized....XYZ". Eliminate B
So between C and E I would choose C as E seems to change the meaning of original sentence.
First i didnt know the meaning of exigencies and i looked into dictionary. It means urgent need. So the urgent need of art makes the foreshortening inevitable. Sounds perfect but may be not. B changes the tense. C has sub-verb agreement error. D is plausible but E is awkward. A means forshortening is inevitable because of the urgent need of dramatic art and D says the exigencies has inevitably forshortened dramatized historical events. I will go with A to preserve original meaning but i am not sure this time. I hope i am right in my line of reasoning.
There is no sub-verb agreement errror in option C. We are talking about the exegencies and not the dramatic art. To me both C and E are good options. But I will choose E because the problem with C is that it is in passive voice.
dictionary. It means urgent need. So the urgent need of art makes the foreshortening inevitable. Sounds perfect but may be not. B changes the tense. C has sub-verb agreement error. D is plausible but E is awkward. A means forshortening is inevitable because of the urgent need of dramatic art and D says the exigencies has inevitably forshortened dramatized historical events. I will go with A to preserve original meaning but i am not sure this time. I hope i am right in my line of reasoning.