Critical Reasoning

David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is A

Nice analysis "Niksworth."

The correct answer will describe the roles of both portions in bold. The first portion describes two possible advantages of the new salt water system. The second portion replies with two disadvantages that are not directly related to the two advantages listed in the first statement. These advantages and disadvantages may seem to be related, but the two advantages are "no chlorine irritation" and "softer skin," while the two disadvantages are "costs more to install" and "can leave behind a residue on surfaces." These are not directly related. The non-bold portion in between does mention cost savings and would be related to the disadvantages, but this portion is not bold-faced.

Choice A correctly describes the roles of each of these statements and is the best answer. Choice D is very close to this, but incorrectly describes the second portion as directly refuting the advantages stated in the first. Choice B, C, and E each describe both portions incorrectly. The first portion is not evidence for a claim, it is a claim. The first portion is also not the main conclusion, but merely some possible advantages.

"reply2spg" - the way that I like to approach these questions is to work with one bold-faced portion first. I start with whichever portion I understand the best and I go through all of the answer choices looking at that portion. When I have eliminated all of the possible choices there I am left with two or three choices. I then use the other bold-faced portion to eliminate remaining choices and make the final decision. In this case, if I recognized that the first portion contained some claim advantages, and was not the main conclusion, (eliminate choice C) and was not evidence for a claim but is actually a claim (eliminate E). A, B, and D can then be evaluated using the second bold faced portion. B can be eliminated because the second portion does not support the first. Then we go to A and D and the question comes down to whether the disadvantages are directly related to the advantages as discussed above.

By the way, if you enjoy these and want more questions and more useful advice on approaching difficult types of questions like assumptions, "most useful to know," plan questions, and" best completes the passage," then you should check out the Veritas Critical Reasoning 2 book - I happen to have written many of the questions in that book!

Thanks!

gui_guimaraes wrote:

David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is A

Nice analysis "Niksworth."

The correct answer will describe the roles of both portions in bold. The first portion describes two possible advantages of the new salt water system. The second portion replies with two disadvantages that are not directly related to the two advantages listed in the first statement. These advantages and disadvantages may seem to be related, but the two advantages are "no chlorine irritation" and "softer skin," while the two disadvantages are "costs more to install" and "can leave behind a residue on surfaces." These are not directly related. The non-bold portion in between does mention cost savings and would be related to the disadvantages, but this portion is not bold-faced.

Choice A correctly describes the roles of each of these statements and is the best answer. Choice D is very close to this, but incorrectly describes the second portion as directly refuting the advantages stated in the first. Choice B, C, and E each describe both portions incorrectly. The first portion is not evidence for a claim, it is a claim. The first portion is also not the main conclusion, but merely some possible advantages.

"reply2spg" - the way that I like to approach these questions is to work with one bold-faced portion first. I start with whichever portion I understand the best and I go through all of the answer choices looking at that portion. When I have eliminated all of the possible choices there I am left with two or three choices. I then use the other bold-faced portion to eliminate remaining choices and make the final decision. In this case, if I recognized that the first portion contained some claim advantages, and was not the main conclusion, (eliminate choice C) and was not evidence for a claim but is actually a claim (eliminate E). A, B, and D can then be evaluated using the second bold faced portion. B can be eliminated because the second portion does not support the first. Then we go to A and D and the question comes down to whether the disadvantages are directly related to the advantages as discussed above.

By the way, if you enjoy these and want more questions and more useful advice on approaching difficult types of questions like assumptions, "most useful to know," plan questions, and" best completes the passage," then you should check out the Veritas Critical Reasoning 2 book - I happen to have written many of the questions in that book!

Thanks!

Hi!

Just to clear up some part of of your answer: "The non-bold portion in between does mention cost savings and would be related to the disadvantages, but this portion is not bold-faced. " .Although the non bold portion mentions the cost to MAINTAIN (less expensive), the second bold mentions the cost to install , that could be related but [color=]NOT directly related[/color]. Because the cost to install can be higher than that of regular pools and still be less expensive to maintain. This analyses, in my point of view, reassure the test taker that the correct answer is A. Right?!

Tks!