Critical Reasoning

nervesofsteel wrote:a tough one..

I was between B and E

Then B wins.....

alan confuses undermining the support " article's content " with negating the conclusion ... that his children can't be impacted....."conclusion " ...

OA is B

OE : Jane’s argument is certainly undermined— that is, the link between evidence and conclusion is weakened if not outright severed —when Alan shows that her evidence (the article about infants under 3) is inapplicable to their older kids. Certainly, the article isn’t adequate evidence for the conclusion that these kids’ TV viewing should be restricted. Nevertheless, the conclusion itself could still be true — it still could be a good idea to restrict Jacqueline and Mildred’s TV, albeit for different reasons — yet Alan denies that.

Why E is wrong :
(E) accuses Alan of essentially confusing cause and effect — of mistaking the one for the other. But in no way is he suggesting that poor hand-eye coordination leads to all of that excess TV watching. You might have been attracted by the sound of (E), but we hope you were repelled by its smell

For similar cars and drivers, automobile insurance for collision damage has always cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont. Police studies, however, show that cars owned by Greatport residents are, on average, slightly less likely to be involved in a collision than cars in Fairmont. Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in Greatport than in Fairmont.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont.
B. There are no more motorists in Greatport than in Fairmont.
C. Greatport residents who have been in a collision are more likely to report it to their insurance company than Fairmont residents are.
D. Fairmont and Greatport are the cities with the highest collision-damage insurance rates.
E. The insurance companies were already aware of the difference in the likelihood of collisions before the publication of the police reports.

Please Read close, chances are that you will land up with the wrong answer

IMO C. If C were not true, then studies are wrong. Since accidents are in actual more.

insurance cost for cars and drivers= revenue for insurance companies.

given insurance cost greater in Greatport than Fairport
=> Revenue for Insurance companies > Revenue for Fairport companies

Profit=Revenue-Cost.
since Revenue of Greatport is already higher, we must assume that cost is not any greater for Greatport than Fairport so that profit for Greatport insurance companies are higher.

only A comes close. repairing costs of collision damage=payout by insurance companies=cost to insurance companies.

I would say (C), the work "typical" in option (A) makes it less strong. With (C), you always know that insurance companies in city G will make more money.

excellent initiative gmat740...! A whole thread devoted to tough CR questions simply awesome!

clar wrote:excellent initiative gmat740...! A whole thread devoted to tough CR questions simply awesome!

Thanks for appreciation. Your appreiciation is the source of my motivation.

Madhur, as I said, read CLOSE. You landed up with the wrong answer.

The answer is A.
I was actually very shocked to see A as answer, because I didn't read closely. However I was satisfied when I saw the OE which I am posting below

If collision insurance costs more in Greatport, then collision damage either costs more to repair or the argument's conclusion is correct. Thus, the argument must assume that repair costs are NOT higher in Greatport than in Fairmont.

Why other options are wrong :

The absolute number of motorists in either city doesn't matter, since insurance premiums amount to an average of the amount that the insurance companies pay for collison repair for all their accident-prone customers, plus the companies' profits. From this relationship, we can see that there are only two ways (or a combination, thereof) that can account for higher insurance premiums in one city relative to the other. Either the cost of repair is higher in one city (insurance companies have to pay out more to cover their liabilities) or the insurance companies' profits are higher in that city. The former is a statement of the converse of A and the latter is a restatement of the argument's conclusion. If you put the former statement into the argument as a premise, it contradicts the conclusion and weakens the argument, which means it's an assumption critical to the argument.

Hope this Helps

After a few days of silence. I am back with the next one.

Yeasts capable of leavening bread are widespread, and in the many centuries during which the ancient Egyptians made only unleavened bread, such yeasts must frequently have been mixed into bread doughs accidentally. The Egyptians, however, did not discover leavened bread until about 3000 B.C. That discovery roughly coincided with the introduction of a wheat variety that was preferable to previous varieties because its edible kernel could be removed from the husk without first toasting the grain.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence that the two developments were causally related?

A. Even after the ancient Egyptians discovered leavened bread and the techniques for reliably producing it were well known, unleavened bread continued to be widely consumed.
B. Only when the Egyptians stopped the practice of toasting grain were their stonelined grain-toasting pits available for baking bread.
C. Heating a wheat kernel destroys its gluten, a protein that must be present in order for yeast to leaven bread dough.
D. The new variety of wheat, which had a more delicate flavor because it was not toasted, was reserved for the consumption of high officials when it first began to be grown.
E. Because the husk of the new variety of wheat was more easily removed, flour made from it required less effort to produce.


OA-C

would go for C

B, D, E do not mention leavening of bread at all. A is irrelevant, doesnt bring out the causal relation

C: brings out the causal relation.
toasting =>destroys proteins =>unleavened bread.
no toasting=>proteins not destroyed=>leavened bread

is it E ?

Yes IMO C.
The question stem asks us to establish a causal relationship between the discovery of leavened bread by the egyptians and the introduction of the wheat variety. If heating the kernel of this wheat destroys the gluten then yeast cannot possibly be growing on this wheat and will not be responsible for leavened bread. However this is not certain because the egyptians would have continued to grow other varieties of wheat where yeast could grow and be responsible for leavening. But this is the closest option to chose amongst all because none of the other options made much sense to me.

yogami wrote:Yes IMO C.
The question stem asks us to establish a causal relationship between the discovery of leavened bread by the egyptians and the introduction of the wheat variety. If heating the kernel of this wheat destroys the gluten then yeast cannot possibly be growing on this wheat and will not be responsible for leavened bread. However this is not certain because the egyptians would have continued to grow other varieties of wheat where yeast could grow and be responsible for leavening. But this is the closest option to chose amongst all because none of the other options made much sense to me.

Correct explanation

OA-C

I was getting a feeling that I haven't yet posted any bold face question. The next one is an easy but a tricky one.
Clearly all other options are out except A and B.Debate is between A and B

Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive forests, but these forests have mostly disappeared and been replaced by peat bogs. The common view is that the Highlands’ deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture. However, agriculture began in the Highlands less than 2,000 years ago. Peat bogs, which consist of compressed decayed vegetable matter, build up by only about one foot per 1,000 years and, throughout the Highlands, remains of trees inpeat bogs are almost all at depths great than four feet. Since climate changes that occurred between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago favored the development of peat bogs rather than the survival of forests, the deforestation was more likely the result of natural processes than of human activity.

In the ecologist’s argument the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is evidence that has been used in support of a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is a finding that the ecologist uses to counter that evidence.
B. The first is evidence that, in light of the evidence provided in the second, serves
as grounds for the ecologist’s rejection of a certain position.
C. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence that has been used in support of that position.
D. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second provides evidence in support of that rejection.
E. The first is a position for which the ecologist argues; the second provides evidence to support that position.

OA-B

IMO B

A. The first is evidence that has been used in support of a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is a finding that the ecologist uses to counter that evidence ...
Here the first statement is correct but second one is incorrect. The second finding is not countering the first evidence.(That Agricultre< 2000 years)

B. he first is evidence that, in light of the evidence provided in the second, serves as grounds for the ecologist’s rejection of a certain position.

This is correct. If both evidences are taken together, it rejects the position that deforestation was due to agricultural activities.

B it is