LR questions Flashcards
Which principle most helps to justify the columnist’s reasoning?
Columnist: Although most people favor the bill and the bill does not violate anyone’s basic human rights, it will be not passed for many years, if at all; nor will any similar bill. Those people who would be adversely affected were it to become law are very influential. This shows that, if this country is a democracy at all, it is not a well-functioning one.
1) If a democracy is well functioning, then any bill that is opposed by influential people but favored by most other people will eventually pass into law.
2) Any bill passed into law in a well-functioning democracy will be favored by most people and be consistent with individuals’ basic human rights.
3) A bill that most people favor will be passed promptly into law in a well-functioning democracy if the bill does not violate anyone’s basic human rights.
NOT pass into law if many people favor and does not violate human rights –> NOT well functioning
well functioning –> pass into law if benefits and no violations
1) No. The bill must not violate human rights. Also, it is not ANY bill that will pass.
2) This reverses the logic of the prompt. Some bills may pass without the two criteria in a well-functioning democracy.
3) According thot his principle, a bill that is 1) favored by most 2) does not violate human rights 3) is in a well-functioning democracy will pass into law. The bill in the passage does not pass the third criterion. Therefore 3) is the right answer.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument
Though Earth’s human population is increasing, it currently uses only a relatively small fraction of the supply of fresh water. Thus, claims that water shortages will plague humankind in the near future unless population growth trends change are simply mistaken.
1) Population growth trends are notoriously hard to predict with reasonable accuracy.
2) The amount of fresh water available to meet the needs of Earth’s population varies significantly from region to region.
Support: Although the population is increasing, it currently only uses a relatively small fraction of the supply of fresh water.
Conclusion: Claims that water shortages will plague humankind in the near future UNLESS population trends change are mistaken.
Pay attention to UNLESS. The Conclusion is already accounting for changes in population growth trends, so the fact that they are hard to predict with reasonable accuracy is irrelevant.
The support says “supply of fresh water”, and the conclusion says “shortages”. This implies a shortage in more than one location. Moreover, “growth trends” involved WHERE the shortages are occurring.
Which of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning?
We can be sure that at least some halogen lamps are well crafted, because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at Furniture Labyrinth. Any item on display at Future Labyrinth is well crafted.
1) We can be positive that there are at least a few disturbing sonnets, given that Melinda has written several different kinds of sonnets; everything Melinda writes is disturbing.
2) We can be sure that Gianna will get at least some good mechanical work done to her car, because she can have her car worked on at any of several shops in the city, and every shop is capable of doing good mechanical work.
3) We can be positive that at least some minnows rae healthy, because many different species of minnow can be found in lakes nearby, and every lake nearby is teeming with healthy fish.
4) We can be confident that the cornmeal used at Matteo’s Trattoria is healthful and organic, since cornmeal is one of the ingredients used in preparing meals there; whenever a meal is prepared at Matteo’s Trattoria, only healthful, organic ingredients are used.
You were confused by the “halogen lamps from MOST manufacturers are on display at FL”. This does not mean that MOST halogen lamps are on display at FL. It means at least SOME are.
The 구조: FL –> well crafted. FL SOME lamps –> SOME lamps well crafted.
1) is the answer. Melinda writes –> disturbing. Melinda writes SOME sonnets –> SOME sonnets disturbing.
2) In Parallel Reasoning you also have to pay attention to the tense. Gianna WILL get work done is different from saying some lamps ARE well crafted. It is a prediction about the future.
3) is wrong because it would need to say that lake nearby –> 100% healthy fish. Teeming with healthy fish = many are healthy.
4) The conclusion is different. In the question, the question says SOME lamps are well crafted. This choice says All cornmeal is healthful and organic.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
Viewers surveyed immediately after the televised political debate last year between Lopez and Tanner tended to think that Lopez had made better arguments, but the survey repondents who reported that Lopez’s arguments were better may have been biased in favor of Lopez. After all, Lopez eventually did win the election.
1) Most people who voted in the election that Lopez won did not watch the debate.
2) Most people in the live audience watching the debate who were surveyed immediately afterward said that they thought Tanner was more persuasive in the debate than was Lopez.
3) The people who watched the televised debate were more likely to vote for Tanner than were the people who did not watch the debate.
4) Most of the viewers surveyed immediately prior to the debate said that they would probably vote for Tanner.
5) Lopez won the election over Tanner by a very narrow margin.
Conclusion: The survey respondents who reported that Lopez’s arguments were better may have been biased in favor of Lopez.
Support: Lopez eventually did win the election.
The correct answer choice will show that bias may not have produced the survey results favoring Lopez.
1) The argument is about a survey of viewers who DID watch the debate, so this is not relevant.
2) This is not relevant to the conclusion, which considers only that those respondents who reported that Lopez’s arguments were more persuasive may have been biased.
3) This could only STRENGTHEN the argument.
4) This suggests that Lopez convinced people, and that he made good points, so the audience was NOT biased. This is the answer.
5) This is not relevant to the argument.
Each of the following is a necessary assumption EXCEPT:
Some people have been promoting a new herbal mixture as a remedy for the common cold. A cold sufferer, skeptical of the claim that the mixture is an effective cold remedy, argued, “Suppose that the mixture were an effective cold remedy. Since most people with colds wish to recover quickly, it follows that almost everybody with a cold would be using it. Therefore, since there are many people who have colds but do not use the mixture, it is obviously not effective.”
1) Enough of the mixture is produced to provide the required doses to almost everybody with a cold.
2) The mixture does not have side effects severe enough to make many people who have colds avoid using it.
3) The mixture is powerful enough to prevent almost everybody who uses it from contracting any further colds.
4) The mixture is widely enough known that almost everybody with a cold is aware of it.
5) There are no effective cold remedies available that many people who have colds prefer to the mixture.
Premise: most people with colds wish to recover quickly –> almost everyone with a cold would be using it if it were effective.
BUT there are many people who have colds but do not.
Conclusion: It is not effective.
When you can’t find a link or gap between P and C, look for an intermediate conclusion. In this case, it is IC: SINCE most people with colds wish to recover quickly, IT FOLLOWS THAT almost everybody with a cold would be using it.
The rest of the answer choices are defenders. They rule out alternative possibilities/obstacles to using the herbal mixture. C is outside the scope of the argument, which is about recovering from a cold, not preventing future colds.
The director’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it:
Director of personnel: Ms. Tours has formally requested a salary adjustment on the grounds that she was denied merit raises to which she was entitled. Since such grounds provide a possible basis for adjustments, an official response is required. Ms. Tours presents compelling evidence that her job performance has been both excellent in itself and markedly superior to that of others in her department who were awarded merit raises. Her complaint that she was treated unfairly thus appears justified. Nevertheless, her request should be denied. To raise Ms. Tours’s salary because of her complaint would jeopardize the integrity of the firm’s merit-based reward system by sending the message that employees can get their salaries raised if they just complain enough.
1) attempts to undermine the persuasiveness of Ms. Tour’s evidence by characterizing it as “mere complaining”
2) sidesteps the issue of whether superior job performance is a suitable basis for awarding salary increases
3) overlooks the implications for the integrity of the firm’s merit-based reward system of denying Ms. Tours’s request
raising her justified request would send the message that employees can get their salaries raised if they just complain enough –> this would jeopardize the integrity of the firm’s merit-based reward system –> her raise should be denied
1) intermediate conclusion: would sending the message that getting a salary raise if employees complain jeopardize the integrity of the firm’s merit-based reward system?
2) final conclusion: if the raise would jeopardize the integrity of the firm’s reward system, should her raise be denied? (aren’t her rights more important?)
1) the argument never undermined the persuasiveness of the evidence. It even says “Ms. Tours presents compelling evidence”.
2) The issue is not whether the company should offer performance-based salary increases, but whether the fair awarding of such an increase to Ms. Tours would undermine the system.
3) addresses our first concern. If we want integrity, denying a fair raise might undermine that integrity.
Which of the following allows the conclusion to be properly drawn?
If the proposed tax reduction package is adopted this year, the library will be forced to discontinue its daily story hours for children. But if the daily story hours are discontinued, many parents will be greatly inconvenienced. So the proposed tax reduction package will not be adopted this year.
1) Any tax reduction package that will not force the library to discontinue daily story hours will be adopted this year
2) Every tax reduction package that would force the library to discontinue daily story hours would greatly inconvenience parents
3) No tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents would fail to force the library to discontinue daily story hours
4) No tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents will be adopted this year
5) Any tax reduction package that will not greatly inconvenience parents will be adopted this year
tax adopted –> - story hour –> many parents inconvenienced
Conclusion: Tax NOT adopted.
Trigger: Many parents NOT inconvenienced. Parents will not accept the original chain being triggered as they refuse to endure its final result.
1) story hour –> tax adopted (wrong, and also we only have -story hour in our chain)
2) -story hour –> inconvenience parents (already part of the chain)
3) inconvenience parents -> -story hour (illegal reversal)
4) inconvenience parents –> - adopt
Which of the following must be true?
Everyone in Biba’s neighborhood is permitted to swim at Barton Pool at some time during each day that it is open. No children under the age of 6 are permitted to swim at Barton Pool between noon and 5p.m. From 5p.m. until closing, Barton Pool is reserved for adults only.
1) Few children under the age of 6 live in Biba’s neighborhood.
2) If Biba’s next-door neighbor has a child under the age of 6, then Barton Pool is open before noon.
3) If most children who swim in Barton Pool swim in the afternoon, then the pool is generally less crowded after 5p.m.
got wrong… 정확하게 답을 알 때만 답 골라라.
1) do not know this
2) Everyone is permitted to swim at some time. If there is a child under 6, they are not permitted to swim at any time after noon so the pool must be open before noon.
3) We don’t actually know how many adults there are in the neighborhood. It could be more crowded if most of the people who swim are adults.
Which of the following most helps to explain the conclusion drawn above?
For one academic year all the students at a high school were observed. The aim was to test the hypothesis that studying more increased a student’s chances of earning a higher grade. It turned out that the students who spent the most time studying did not earn grades as high as did many students who studied less. Nonetheless, the researchers concluded that the results of the observation supported the initial hypothesis.
1) The students who spent the most time studying earned higher grades than did some students who studied for less time than the average.
2) The students tended to get slightly lower grades as the academic year progressed.
3) In each course, the more a student studied, the better his or her grade was in that course.
4) Students who spent more time studying understood the course material better than other students did.
Careful with causal outcomes.
Cause: studying more. Effect: A student’s chances of earning a higher grade.
1), 2) completely irrelevant.
3), 4) were confusing to me.
Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges!
The hypothesis makes us compare a student to that same student, and the thing we change is how much the student studies. The evidence in the passsage compares some students to other students, but it could also just be differing levels of smartness that makes the grades different.
4) is psychologically attractive but for the same reason(compares some students to other students) is also wrong.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the reasoning above?
The Iliad and the Odyssey were both attributed to Homer in ancient times. But these two poems differ greatly in tone and vocabulary and in certain details of the fictional world they depict. So they are almost certainly not the work of the same poet.
1) Several hymns that were also attributed to Homer in ancient times differ more from the Iliad in the respects mentioned than does the Odyssey.
2) Both the Iliad and the Odyssey have come down to us in manuscripts that have suffered from minor copying errors and other textual corruptions.
3) Work known to have been written by the same modern writer are as different from each other in the respects mentioned as are the Iliad and the Odyssey.
4) Neither the Iliad nor the Odyssey taken by itself is completely consistent in all of the respects mentioned.
5) Both the Iliad and the Odyssey were the result of an extended process of oral composition in which many poets were involved.
p: differ in tone, vocab, details
c: not same poet
Mission: INVALIDATE differ in t,v,d –> not same poet. For example, we can give an example where t,v,d are different but are the same poet.
1) so what? does not settle the question. “attributed” to Homer –> can not settle anything.
2) attacking the premise. can not do that.
3) says that sometimes great difference in tone, vocab, detail can be from the same author.
4)
5) if anything, this strengthens the argument. Does not hurt the assumption because the author already assumed that Homer didn’t write both works.
The reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that:
The average length of stay for patients at Edgewater Hospital is four days, compared to six days at University Hospital. Since studies show that recovery rates at the two hospitals are similar for patients with similar illnesses, University Hospital could decrease its average length of stay without affecting quality of care.
1) Equates the quality of care at a hospital with parents’ average length of stay
2) Treats a condition that will ensure the preservation of quality of care as a condition that is required to preserve quality of care
3) Fails to take into account the possibility that patients in Edgewater Hospital tend to be treated for different illnesses than patients at University Hospital
4) Presumes, without providing justification, that the length of time patients stay in the hospital is never relevant to the recovery rates of these patients
5) Fails to take into account the possibility that patients at University Hospital generally prefer longer hospital stays
Pay attention to the word AVERAGE.
Hospital E might have many scrape injuries and a few life or death injuries, while hospital U may have many mediocre injuries. You can’t decrease U’s patients’ average length of stay then.
Recovery rates are similar for patients with similar illnesses –> only tells us that the hospitals are similarly competent. Does not tell us that the hospitals both have patients with similar illnesses.
1) conclusion is decrease average length of stay without affecting quality of care. Thus definitely does not equate these two.
2) no conditional logic.
3) yes.
4) wrong, if anything the argument does consider that length of stay and quality o
5) I chose it because I equated patient happiness with quality of CARE, which is wrong. This is out of scope.
Which is LEAST compatible with the results of the gamma interferon exp.?
Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disease: white blood cells attack the myelin sheath that protects nerve fibers in the spinal cord and brain. Medical science now has a drug that can be used to successfully treat multiple sclerosis, but the path that led medical researchers to this drug was hardly straightforward. Initially, some scientists believed attacks characteristic of multiple sclerosis might be triggered by chronic viral infections. So in 1984 they began testing gamma interferon, one of the body’s own antiviral weapons. To their horror, all the multiple sclerosis patients tested became dramatically worse. The false step proved to be instructive however.
A) Gamma interferon stops white blood cells from producing myelin-destroying compounds.
B) Administering gamma infereon to those without multiple sclerosis causes an increase in the number of white blood cells.
C) Medical researchers have discovered that the gamma interferon level in the cerebrospinal fluid skyrockets just before and during multiple sclerosis attacks.
D) It has now been established that most multiple sclerosis sufferers do not have chronic viral infections.
E) The drug now used to test multiple sclerosis is known to inhibit the activity of gamma interferon.
I did not understand the passage.
MS: white blood cells(immune system) attack the myelin sheath
Initially: thought chronic viral infections trigger MS.
Tested gamma interferon –> became worse.
KEY TO SOLVING PROBLEM: White blood cells = gamma interferon = triggers MS.
1) Gamma interferon makes MS worse. This is a direct opposite so is LEAST compatible.
2) those WITHOUT은 test 된 적 없음 - neutral (그 뒤에는 뭐가 와도 ok) –> could be true.
3) ok (g.i causes MS)
4) could be true.
5) could be true (g.i causes MS)
I also had to understand the task: the four wrong answer choices were the COULD BE TRUE choices.
The statements above most strongly support which one of the following?
Gene splicing can give rise to new varieties of farm animals that have only a partially understood genetic makeup. In addition to introducing the genes for whichever trait is desired, the technique can introduce genes governing the production of toxins or carcinogens, and these latter undesirable traits might not be easily discoverable.
1) Gene splicing is not an effective way of producing new varieties of farm animals.
2) Gene splicing to produce new varieties of farm animals should be used cautiously.
I thought “should” would make any Strongly Support answer choice wrong so chose 1). The answer is 2).
2) “undesirable” traits might not be easily discoverable. Shows he has an opinion. The whole passage has a cautionary tone.
1) We don’t know what he means by effective. Also, could be effective as a way of producing new varieties (that are sickly). Effective: 효과가 있다.
Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the info above?
Computers perform actions that are closer to thinking than anything nonhuman animals do. But computers do not have volitional powers, although some nonhuman animals do.
1) Having volitional powers need not involve thinking.
2) Things that are not animals do not have volitional powers.
3) Computers possess none of the attributes of living things.
4) It is necessary to have volitional powers in order to think.
Thinking - computers ——ants
computers: x volitional powers.
ants: volitional powers.
Process of elimination
2) the 보기 only talks about computers and nonhuman animals. “Things that are not animals” exceeds the scope of the argument.
3) Computers approximate thinking, so could possess some attributes of living things.
4) thinking, volitional powers on a separate scale. No relationship. 틀린 이유: My mind made up the conclusion “therefore, computers do not think.” Then I took volitional powers as necessary for thinking, and since computers lack that said they do not think. However, there is no such conclusion in the argument.
답: 1) Some nonhuman animals may not think. These animals may have volitional powers. Having volitional powers need not involve thinking.
The statements provide some support for each of the following EXCEPT:
The graphical illustrations mathematics teachers use enable students to learn geometry more easily by providing them with an intuitive understanding of geometric concepts, which makes it easier to acquire the ability to manipulate symbols for the purpose of calculation. Illustrating algebraic concepts graphically would be equally effective pedagogically, even though the deepest mathematical understanding is abstract, not imagistic.
1) Pictorial understanding is not the final stage of mathematical understanding.
2) People who are very good at manipulating symbols do not necessarily have any mathematical understanding.
3) Illustrating geometric concepts graphically is an effective teaching method.
4) Acquiring the ability to manipulate symbols is part of the process of learning geometry.
5) There are strategies that can be effectively employed in the teaching both of algebra and of geometry.
1) “the deepest mathematical understanding is absract” –> supports this. deepest = final
2) do not know anything about people who are very good at manipulating symbols.
“some A are B” does NOT support “some A are NOT B”
3) directly supported. Says graphical illustrations to learn geometry are effective.
4) manipulate symbols for the purpose of calculation -> learn geometry
5) graphical illustrations
