Veritas CR Tough to interpret?

[imskpwr]

Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of the adults who live in Idaho and indicated support for a recently proposed bill via an online poll, however, approximately 12% own livestock. Clearly, adults who own livestock are more likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock.

The conclusion drawn above is based on the assumption that _____________.

a. Adults who own livestock were less likely to indicate support via the online poll than were adults who do not own livestock.

b. The number of adults who indicated support for the bill via the online poll was greater than the number of adults who own livestock.

c. At least some of the adults in Idaho who own livestock responded more than once to the online poll.

d. Adults who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation than are adults who do not indicate support.

e. Adults who own livestock in Idaho are more likely to indicate support for proposed legislation than are adults who own livestock in a state with less livestock.

I still don't understand the stimulus clearly. How to solve this Q. How to interpret this one.

[David@VeritasPrep]

This question is a bit above average in terms of the difficulty rating, but it is a typical "questionable statistics" problem.

I would stay that statistics in critical reasoning can be the most confusing. I have seen some official CR questions with statistics that are very confusing.

For this question:

You have the evidence that while only 5% of the overall population of Idaho own livestock, 12% of the group that favors a certain law (as indicated on a recent online poll) own livestock. In other words, livestock owners are over represented in the group of people who favor this law (according to the online poll).

There are several ways to explain this result. First, it may be that the online poll is not well known to everyone in the state but is well known to livestock owners. Maybe the poll was taken on a website that livestock owners frequent.

Another possible explanation is that livestock owners are just more passionate about the issue and so are more likely to take the time to respond to an online poll.

A third explanation is that livestock owners are more effected by the legislation than other people and so they are more likely to favor the legislation. The conclusion chooses this third reason when it says "Clearly, adults who own livestock are more likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock."

Since there are many ways to explain the livestock owners support for this legislation, it is certainly a leap in logic to dismiss the other explanations and jump to the conclusion that livestock owners are more effected by this legislation.

You are looking for an answer choice that justifies this logical leap. Choice D does this. If it is true that people who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation then the fact that livestock owners are over represented in the "support" portion of the population means that they are more likely to be affected by the legislation.

Hope it helps!

David

[imskpwr]

This question is a bit above average in terms of the difficulty rating, but it is a typical "questionable statistics" problem.

I would stay that statistics in critical reasoning can be the most confusing. I have seen some official CR questions with statistics that are very confusing.

For this question:

You have the evidence that while only 5% of the overall population of Idaho own livestock, 12% of the group that favors a certain law (as indicated on a recent online poll) own livestock. In other words, livestock owners are over represented in the group of people who favor this law (according to the online poll).

There are several ways to explain this result. First, it may be that the online poll is not well known to everyone in the state but is well known to livestock owners. Maybe the poll was taken on a website that livestock owners frequent.

Another possible explanation is that livestock owners are just more passionate about the issue and so are more likely to take the time to respond to an online poll.

A third explanation is that livestock owners are more effected by the legislation than other people and so they are more likely to favor the legislation. The conclusion chooses this third reason when it says "Clearly, adults who own livestock are more likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock."

Since there are many ways to explain the livestock owners support for this legislation, it is certainly a leap in logic to dismiss the other explanations and jump to the conclusion that livestock owners are more effected by this legislation.

You are looking for an answer choice that justifies this logical leap. Choice D does this. If it is true that people who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation then the fact that livestock owners are over represented in the "support" portion of the population means that they are more likely to be affected by the legislation.

Hope it helps!

David

VERY GOOD EXPLANATION.
Things got cleared up. Learned some new things.

THANKS A LOT SIR.

[David@VeritasPrep]

I am glad to help feel free to alert me anytime you have a posting that you would like a response to.

You know looking at this one -- it is a tough question to interpret! We are always editing and improving the questions and this one may need a little editing to make it clearer.

[imskpwr]

I am glad to help feel free to alert me anytime you have a posting that you would like a response to.

You know looking at this one -- it is a tough question to interpret! We are always editing and improving the questions and this one may need a little editing to make it clearer.

Hope to get a reply on this issue.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/valid-invali ... 76934.html

[David@VeritasPrep]

I responded to that other thread. Let me know if you run into any other "interesting" CR questions!

David

[imskpwr]

I responded to that other thread. Let me know if you run into any other "interesting" CR questions!

David

Surely. It will be "My Pleasure" to have your "DEEP GUIDANCE".