-
singalong
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:42 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:1 members
I always go wrong in the assumption and weaken questions which have 'Except' in them.
I mean, let's say I have an assumption question.For example..
"The new HitItFar driver is the only golf club that uses space-age Titanium-Kryptonium alloy to strengthen its head.
This driver is SO good, the last 12 winners of the major tour championships have all recently switched to it! Isn't
it time for you to add power to your swing and distance to your drives? Trade in your old driver today - and
HitItFar tomorrow!" All of the following claims are either implied or made explicitly in the above advertisement
EXCEPT:
"¢ Switching to the HitItFar driver will improve your play.
"¢ The HitItFar driver helped the last 12 major championship winners achieve their victory.
"¢ Major championship winners are experts and know what constitutes a great golf club.
"¢ Your existing driver is inferior to the HitItFar driver.
"¢ Only HitItFar golf clubs have Titanium-Kryptonium alloy in the head of their drivers.
I am learning the Negation technique.My approach is that I first try to rule out the out of scope options and then negate the left overs to see which weaken the conclusion. But then the above type of question completely throws me off. I would essentially need to negate each of them.I always go wrong in such questions.
Likewise, weaken questions too are a little dreaded. But not as much as the Assumption ones.
For example..
Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, illegal immigration is an important issue in the current race for
mayor. Of the two candidates for mayor, one supports a plan that would attempt to deport the city's 9,000 illegal
immigrants and the other does not. Surveys consistently show that about 60% of the city's residents are opposed
to the plan, while about 35% are in support of the plan. Therefore, the candidate who does not support the plan
will win the election for mayor. All of the following statements weaken the analyst's argument, EXCEPT:
"¢ In the city at issue, most voters make their voting decisions based on the candidates' positions on abortion.
"¢ Of the 35% of residents who support the plan, some are willing to consider alternate plans for addressing illegal
immigration.
"¢ Many of the residents who oppose the plan are not registered voters.
"¢ The candidate who supports the plan is the incumbent mayor, and has been elected to four consecutive terms
despite taking controversial positions on many important issues.
"¢ Just under 30% of the city's residents are illegal immigrants who cannot vote.
Could the experts explain the approach to handle such questions effectively?
I mean, let's say I have an assumption question.For example..
"The new HitItFar driver is the only golf club that uses space-age Titanium-Kryptonium alloy to strengthen its head.
This driver is SO good, the last 12 winners of the major tour championships have all recently switched to it! Isn't
it time for you to add power to your swing and distance to your drives? Trade in your old driver today - and
HitItFar tomorrow!" All of the following claims are either implied or made explicitly in the above advertisement
EXCEPT:
"¢ Switching to the HitItFar driver will improve your play.
"¢ The HitItFar driver helped the last 12 major championship winners achieve their victory.
"¢ Major championship winners are experts and know what constitutes a great golf club.
"¢ Your existing driver is inferior to the HitItFar driver.
"¢ Only HitItFar golf clubs have Titanium-Kryptonium alloy in the head of their drivers.
I am learning the Negation technique.My approach is that I first try to rule out the out of scope options and then negate the left overs to see which weaken the conclusion. But then the above type of question completely throws me off. I would essentially need to negate each of them.I always go wrong in such questions.
Likewise, weaken questions too are a little dreaded. But not as much as the Assumption ones.
For example..
Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, illegal immigration is an important issue in the current race for
mayor. Of the two candidates for mayor, one supports a plan that would attempt to deport the city's 9,000 illegal
immigrants and the other does not. Surveys consistently show that about 60% of the city's residents are opposed
to the plan, while about 35% are in support of the plan. Therefore, the candidate who does not support the plan
will win the election for mayor. All of the following statements weaken the analyst's argument, EXCEPT:
"¢ In the city at issue, most voters make their voting decisions based on the candidates' positions on abortion.
"¢ Of the 35% of residents who support the plan, some are willing to consider alternate plans for addressing illegal
immigration.
"¢ Many of the residents who oppose the plan are not registered voters.
"¢ The candidate who supports the plan is the incumbent mayor, and has been elected to four consecutive terms
despite taking controversial positions on many important issues.
"¢ Just under 30% of the city's residents are illegal immigrants who cannot vote.
Could the experts explain the approach to handle such questions effectively?
