Paulsville and Longtown

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 17 times

Paulsville and Longtown

by madhur_ahuja » Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:26 pm
Paulsville and Longtown cannot both be included in the candidate’s itinerary of campaign stops. The candidate will make a stop in Paulsville unless Salisbury is made part of the itinerary. Unfortunately, a stop in Salisbury is out of the question. Clearly, then, a stop in Longtown can be ruled out.

The reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following arguments?

(A) The chef never has both fresh radishes and fresh green peppers available for the chief’s salad at the same time. If she uses fresh radishes, she also uses spinach. But currently there is no spinach to be had. It can be inferred, then, that she will not be using fresh green peppers.

(B) Tom will definitely support Parker if Mendoza does not apply; and Tom will not support both Parker and Chung. Since, as it turns out, Mendoza will not apply, it follows that Chung will not get Tom’s support.

(C) The program committee never selects two plays by Shaw for a single season. But when they select a play by Coward, they do not select any play by Shaw at all. For this season, the committee has just selected a play by Shaw, so they will not select any play by Coward.

(D) In agricultural pest control, either pesticides or the introduction of natural enemies of the pest, but not both, will work. Of course, neither will be needed if pest-resistant crops are planted. So if pesticides are in fact needed, it must be that there are no natural enemies of the pest.

(E) The city cannot afford to build both a new stadium and the new road that would be needed to get there. But neither of the two projects is worth doing without the other. Since the city will not undertake any but worthwhile projects, the new stadium will not be constructed at this time
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 8:01 am
Thanked: 4 times

by italian7745 » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:39 am
IMO B

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:48 am
Location: india
Thanked: 39 times

by xcusemeplz2009 » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:14 am
IMO B

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 2:47 am
Thanked: 12 times

Re: Paulsville and Longtown

by shahdevine » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:08 am
madhur_ahuja wrote:Paulsville and Longtown cannot both be included in the candidate’s itinerary of campaign stops. The candidate will make a stop in Paulsville unless Salisbury is made part of the itinerary. Unfortunately, a stop in Salisbury is out of the question. Clearly, then, a stop in Longtown can be ruled out.

The reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following arguments?

(A) The chef never has both fresh radishes and fresh green peppers available for the chief’s salad at the same time. If she uses fresh radishes, she also uses spinach. But currently there is no spinach to be had. It can be inferred, then, that she will not be using fresh green peppers.

(B) Tom will definitely support Parker if Mendoza does not apply; and Tom will not support both Parker and Chung. Since, as it turns out, Mendoza will not apply, it follows that Chung will not get Tom’s support.

(C) The program committee never selects two plays by Shaw for a single season. But when they select a play by Coward, they do not select any play by Shaw at all. For this season, the committee has just selected a play by Shaw, so they will not select any play by Coward.

(D) In agricultural pest control, either pesticides or the introduction of natural enemies of the pest, but not both, will work. Of course, neither will be needed if pest-resistant crops are planted. So if pesticides are in fact needed, it must be that there are no natural enemies of the pest.

(E) The city cannot afford to build both a new stadium and the new road that would be needed to get there. But neither of the two projects is worth doing without the other. Since the city will not undertake any but worthwhile projects, the new stadium will not be constructed at this time
b...paragraph starts with complementary set(A vs. B) but then introduces C, which has nothing to do with A or B but constrains his decision and forces him to choose A or B, with no clear justification.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Lisbon
Thanked: 1 times

Re: Paulsville and Longtown

by oagostinho » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:19 am
madhur_ahuja wrote:Paulsville and Longtown cannot both be included in the candidate’s itinerary of campaign stops. The candidate will make a stop in Paulsville unless Salisbury is made part of the itinerary. Unfortunately, a stop in Salisbury is out of the question. Clearly, then, a stop in Longtown can be ruled out.

The reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following arguments?

(A) The chef never has both fresh radishes and fresh green peppers available for the chief’s salad at the same time. If she uses fresh radishes, she also uses spinach. But currently there is no spinach to be had. It can be inferred, then, that she will not be using fresh green peppers.

(B) Tom will definitely support Parker if Mendoza does not apply; and Tom will not support both Parker and Chung. Since, as it turns out, Mendoza will not apply, it follows that Chung will not get Tom’s support.

(C) The program committee never selects two plays by Shaw for a single season. But when they select a play by Coward, they do not select any play by Shaw at all. For this season, the committee has just selected a play by Shaw, so they will not select any play by Coward.

(D) In agricultural pest control, either pesticides or the introduction of natural enemies of the pest, but not both, will work. Of course, neither will be needed if pest-resistant crops are planted. So if pesticides are in fact needed, it must be that there are no natural enemies of the pest.

(E) The city cannot afford to build both a new stadium and the new road that would be needed to get there. But neither of the two projects is worth doing without the other. Since the city will not undertake any but worthwhile projects, the new stadium will not be constructed at this time
Hi,

Very nice question, may i know, where did you take this question?

Really appreciated!

Cheers!

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 17 times

by madhur_ahuja » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:21 am
Thanks all. OA is B

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:33 am

by kris77 » Sun May 15, 2016 3:19 pm
I am pretty sure that the right Answer is B