To avoid economic collapse, Russia must
increase its GNP by 20%. However, due to the
structure of its economy, if the 20% threshold is
reached, then a 40% increase in GNP is
achievable.
Assuming that the above statements are true,
which one of the following must also be true?
(A) If ethnic strife continues in Russia, then a
20% increase in GNP will be unattainable.
(B) If a 40% increase in Russia’s GNP is
impossible, its economy will collapse.
(C) If Russia’s GNP increases by 40%, its
economy will not collapse.
(D) If the 20% threshold is reached, then a
40% increase in GNP is achievable and a
60% increase is probable.
(E) If Russia’s economy collapses, then it will
not have increased its GNP by 40%.
logic-must be true
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
- Thanked: 17 times
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:02 am
- Thanked: 1 times
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:45 am
- Thanked: 2 times
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
- Thanked: 104 times
- Followed by:1 members
B for me
1) GNP increase <20% - Economy collapses
2) if 20% increase reached, then 40% reachable
=>40% increase impossible=> 20% increase not reached (<20%)=>economy collapses
1) GNP increase <20% - Economy collapses
2) if 20% increase reached, then 40% reachable
=>40% increase impossible=> 20% increase not reached (<20%)=>economy collapses
I always thought that
if A => B then
not B => not A
And based on this analysis B, C and E all seem good so i dont know how to proceed further
(A) If ethnic strife continues in Russia, then a
20% increase in GNP will be unattainable.
OUT OF SCOPE
(B) If a 40% increase in Russia’s GNP is
impossible, its economy will collapse.
A = 40% increase in Russia’s GNP is
impossible
B = economy will collapse.
not B = Russian economy will not collapse
not A = 40% increase in GNP is possible
So if the economy will not collapse then we know for sure that Russia would have definitely got past the 20% threshold. But the 40% increase could be achievable in other words possible so B is a good candidate. Dont rule it out yet
(C) If Russia’s GNP increases by 40%, its
economy will not collapse.
A = GNP increases by 40%
B = economy will not collapse
So If the economy collpases then GNP will not increase by 40%. Another good candidate since we know for certain that the economy collapsed Russia never made the 20% threshold hence its GNP never increased by 40%
(D) If the 20% threshold is reached, then a
40% increase in GNP is achievable and a
60% increase is probable.
OUT OF SCOPE
(E) If Russia’s economy collapses, then it will
not have increased its GNP by 40%.
A = economy collapses
B = GNP increased by 40%.
If Russia increased its GNP by 40% then its economy would not have collapsed. Another good candidate
So in the end we have three options which are close
B, C and E
Which one is the best?
if A => B then
not B => not A
And based on this analysis B, C and E all seem good so i dont know how to proceed further
(A) If ethnic strife continues in Russia, then a
20% increase in GNP will be unattainable.
OUT OF SCOPE
(B) If a 40% increase in Russia’s GNP is
impossible, its economy will collapse.
A = 40% increase in Russia’s GNP is
impossible
B = economy will collapse.
not B = Russian economy will not collapse
not A = 40% increase in GNP is possible
So if the economy will not collapse then we know for sure that Russia would have definitely got past the 20% threshold. But the 40% increase could be achievable in other words possible so B is a good candidate. Dont rule it out yet
(C) If Russia’s GNP increases by 40%, its
economy will not collapse.
A = GNP increases by 40%
B = economy will not collapse
So If the economy collpases then GNP will not increase by 40%. Another good candidate since we know for certain that the economy collapsed Russia never made the 20% threshold hence its GNP never increased by 40%
(D) If the 20% threshold is reached, then a
40% increase in GNP is achievable and a
60% increase is probable.
OUT OF SCOPE
(E) If Russia’s economy collapses, then it will
not have increased its GNP by 40%.
A = economy collapses
B = GNP increased by 40%.
If Russia increased its GNP by 40% then its economy would not have collapsed. Another good candidate
So in the end we have three options which are close
B, C and E
Which one is the best?
200 or 800. It don't matter no more.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:50 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:1 members
This is really an excellent question and I look forward to viewing the OA.
That said, my contenders are
D and E but I vote for D.
I eliminated E because it almost passes the negation test of If A--> B = Not A--> Not B
To underscore my point let's examine the conclusion in the stimulus "To avoid economic collapse, Russia must increase its GNP by 20%. " which we can translate to IF A (Russia must increase its GNP by 20%) --> B (To avoid economic collapse).
Now let's translate the statement in E into Not A --> Not B and you'll notice that the exam tester has subtly switched around the conclusion into the condition and the condition into the conclusion giving us Not B (If Russia’s economy collapses) --> Not A (then it will not have increased its GNP by 40%.).
I definitely vote for Option D.
More questions like these please!!
That said, my contenders are
D and E but I vote for D.
I eliminated E because it almost passes the negation test of If A--> B = Not A--> Not B
To underscore my point let's examine the conclusion in the stimulus "To avoid economic collapse, Russia must increase its GNP by 20%. " which we can translate to IF A (Russia must increase its GNP by 20%) --> B (To avoid economic collapse).
Now let's translate the statement in E into Not A --> Not B and you'll notice that the exam tester has subtly switched around the conclusion into the condition and the condition into the conclusion giving us Not B (If Russia’s economy collapses) --> Not A (then it will not have increased its GNP by 40%.).
I definitely vote for Option D.
More questions like these please!!
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
- Thanked: 17 times
I thought it was B. The below link confirms the same:
https://www.novapress.net/diagnostic/lsa ... t_sol.html
Here are my reasons. Economy can collapse because of many factors. One of them is failure in GNP increment by 20%. But, if GNP increases by 20%, there is 100% probability that GNP CAN increase by 40%, i.e. 0% probability that GNP increment of 40% is impossible.
Hence, if the chances of GNP going 40% up > 0%, the GNP DID NOT increase by the threshold of 20%, one of the factors to keep economy up and running. Failure of any factor will cause collapse. Hence, economy collapses. Hence B.
C and E both make the 20% threshold value a sufficient condition for economy to sustain. While I believe it is a necessary factor, I don't agree it is a sufficient one.
https://www.novapress.net/diagnostic/lsa ... t_sol.html
Here are my reasons. Economy can collapse because of many factors. One of them is failure in GNP increment by 20%. But, if GNP increases by 20%, there is 100% probability that GNP CAN increase by 40%, i.e. 0% probability that GNP increment of 40% is impossible.
Hence, if the chances of GNP going 40% up > 0%, the GNP DID NOT increase by the threshold of 20%, one of the factors to keep economy up and running. Failure of any factor will cause collapse. Hence, economy collapses. Hence B.
C and E both make the 20% threshold value a sufficient condition for economy to sustain. While I believe it is a necessary factor, I don't agree it is a sufficient one.