Critical Reasoning

madhur_ahuja wrote:The conclusion is:
In order to ensure safety, it should do X or Y.

Now, how to achieve X or Y is immaterial. Now to evaluate the conclusion, it is first necessary to see weather X or Y are actually required or not before delving into details like how X or Y will be achieved.

In this case, if there are no injuries done by the dogs in the past, X is irrevelant and this makes the argument invalid.

I agree, C is close too ... infact I had choosen this option when I first encountered this CR .... But presence of B makes C the second best option.

goelmohit2002 wrote:

madhur_ahuja wrote:The conclusion is:
In order to ensure safety, it should do X or Y.

Now, how to achieve X or Y is immaterial. Now to evaluate the conclusion, it is first necessary to see weather X or Y are actually required or not before delving into details like how X or Y will be achieved.

In this case, if there are no injuries done by the dogs in the past, X is irrevelant and this makes the argument invalid.

I agree, C is close too ... infact I had choosen this option when I first encountered this CR .... But presence of B makes C the second best option.

Hi Madhur,

Thanks. But what is the problem in this reasoning that if the standards of license are pretty tough, then the same will happen with dog license too and the safety will be ensured....

Moreover in B in one case i.e. 0 injuries, yes it is good answer....but what if injuries are >= 1 ? Then how will B be better then C ?

Thanks
Mohit

goelmohit2002 wrote:

madhur_ahuja wrote:
Hi Madhur,

Thanks. But what is the problem in this reasoning that if the standards of license are pretty tough, then the same will happen with dog license too and the safety will be ensured....

Moreover in B in one case i.e. 0 injuries, yes it is good answer....but what if injuries are >= 1 ? Then how will B be better then C ?

Thanks
Mohit

Mohit,

I agree its difficult to evaluate what acceptable number of injuries is but B is the best choice...sometimes the right answer is not necessarily perfect but is simply the best out of the bunch.

C appears to be incorrect because you have to first decide if there really is problem before you start to find a solution such as the one in C.

Hope that helps.

life is a test wrote:

goelmohit2002 wrote:

madhur_ahuja wrote:
Hi Madhur,

Thanks. But what is the problem in this reasoning that if the standards of license are pretty tough, then the same will happen with dog license too and the safety will be ensured....

Moreover in B in one case i.e. 0 injuries, yes it is good answer....but what if injuries are >= 1 ? Then how will B be better then C ?

Thanks
Mohit

Mohit,

I agree its difficult to evaluate what acceptable number of injuries is but B is the best choice...sometimes the right answer is not necessarily perfect but is simply the best out of the bunch.

C appears to be incorrect because you have to first decide if there really is problem before you start to find a solution such as the one in C.

Hope that helps.

Thanks !!!

But wouldn't B be better worded like
"whether there were any injuries by dogs" ?
OR
"what is the level of acceptable injuries by dogs in the city"

or B say the same thing ?

Please tell....

Thanks
Mohit

scoobydooby wrote:had fallen for C too but B does seem better as explained by others.

conclusion: to protect public safety, either ban dog keeping or raise the standards.

B: injuries caused by dogs in the past-
depending on the number of injuries in the past, it has great impact on the conclusion
if the # is huge=> conclusion is valid
if the # is negligible/low=>conclusion invalid. neither of the steps may be taken.

C. standard required for driving license-
does not have any impact on the conclusion. as the whole purpose is to protect public from the injuries caused by dogs. whatever be the required standards for license, either of the options may be exercised or neither may be needed depending on the scale of injuries caused by dog bites

scoobydooby wrote: C. standard required for driving license-
does not have any impact on the conclusion. as the whole purpose is to protect public from the injuries caused by dogs. whatever be the required standards for license, either of the options may be exercised or neither may be needed depending on the scale of injuries caused by dog bites

goelmohit2002 wrote:Hi All,

[spoiler]In the below question OA = B. Can someone please tell why not C?[/spoiler]

The Mayor of Newtown: Many dog owners believe that they themselves can train their unruly dogs to develop good, companionable behavior, when in fact many dogs can only be made well-behaved through professional training. In order to protect public safety, either license requirements for dog owners should be raised to a level comparable to that for a driver's license or dog ownership should be banned in Newtown.

Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate the conclusion above?
a) The number of dog owners in Newtown who used professional trainers
b) The number of injuries caused by dogs in Newtown in the past
c) The standard required for residents to get drivers' licenses in Newtown
d) The proportion of Newtown residents who own dogs
e) The cost of having a dog trained professionally in Newtown

In order to protect public safety, either license requirements for dog owners should be raised to a level comparable to that for a driver's license or dog ownership should be banned in Newtown.

quant-master wrote: Also conclusion to issue license is drawn to reduce the injury to the people. Hence before issuing a license a thing required to analyse is "whether license is necessary?" if yes than why? and the answer will be because of injury to the general public.

goelmohit2002 wrote:

quant-master wrote: Also conclusion to issue license is drawn to reduce the injury to the people. Hence before issuing a license a thing required to analyse is "whether license is necessary?" if yes than why? and the answer will be because of injury to the general public.

Hi QM,

Can you please tell why in the above case i.e. YES.... B is best....why will Prime Minister say will not ask Mayor....you are recommending upgradation of dog licensing to General licensing....."have you made sure that those standards are good enough for dog licensing ?"

Thanks
Mohit