Weakness

Question 1

Disproving/proving any which assumption of an argument always make the argument more valid. True or false?

Answer 1

False.

Any argument would have an infinite number of assumptions. While the truth of a reasonable assumption may increase the strength of the argument, that is not a guarantee.
An assumption (halfway between reasonable and unreasonable) could be proven/disproven without making any difference to the validity of an argument.

If one proves a necessary assumption to be true, it does not make the argument more valid. It only has the effect of not disproving the argument.

Question 2

“Some parrots are clever.”
Negate this.

Answer 2

NO parrots are clever = ALL parrots are NOT clever.

Remember that qualifiers refer to SETS instead of statuses.
All parrots are clever would not be negating this statement since it’s not mutually exclusive with the original statement.
For all parrots to be clever, it actually guarantees the validity of the statement “some parrots are clever”

Question 3

“Most people in NY ride the train.”
Negate this.

Answer 3

“It’s not the case that most people in NY ride the train.”
This means anywhere from zero to EXACTLY half of the ppl in NY do not ride the train.
Remember that “opposite” is not the same as “negation”

Question 4

For Main Conclusion questions.

If an option is in line w/ the conclusion or main idea of the argument, it’s a good sign the option could be the correct answer because there is nothing necessarily wrong with the answer.

Answer 4

False.

An option can be in line with the prompt but not able to receive any support from the prompt. Hence, there is no way it could be the main conclusion of the prompt.

Question 5

For MSS questions.

If an option is in line w/ the conclusion or main idea of the argument, it’s a good sign the option could be the correct answer because there is nothing necessarily wrong with the answer.

Answer 5

False.

An option might even be able to make the prompt argument stronger if we assume it to be true. But it cannot be the answer if it does not have explicit proof in the prompt.

Question 6

Tissue biopsies taken on patients who have undergone throat surgery show that those who snored frequently were significantly more likely to have serious abnormalities in their throats muscles than those who rarely snored or not at all. This shows snoring can damage the throat of the snorer.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) The study relied on the subjects’ self-reporting to determine whether or not they snored frequently.
(B) The patients’ throat surgery was not undertaken to treat abnormalities in their throat muscles.
(C) All of the test subjects were of similar age and weight and in similar states of health.
(D) People who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery.
(E) A follow up study revealed that those patients whose abnormalities were successfully treated did not snore less frequently.

Answer 6

Answer = (E)

The option means that after those abnormalities were fixed, they still snored just as much; hence, no correlation.
In other words, the throat abnormalities did not lead to the snoring, which would have been the alternative hypothesis.

The prompt hypothesized that because those that had throat abnormalities overlap a lot with those that snore more, that it must be the snoring that caused the abnormality.
But there is nothing in the prompt preventing the alt hypothesis that it may be because the abnormalities already existed that led to those people to snoring more.

Question 7

Tissue biopsies taken on patients who have undergone throat surgery show that those who snored frequently were significantly more likely to have serious abnormalities in their throats muscles than those who rarely snored or not at all. This shows snoring can damage the throat of the snorer.

Which one of the following options are irrelevant to the support?

(A) The study relied on the subjects’ self-reporting to determine whether or not they snored frequently.
(B) The patients’ throat surgery was not undertaken to treat abnormalities in their throat muscles.
(C) All of the test subjects were of similar age and weight and in similar states of health.
(D) People who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery.
(E) A follow up study revealed that those patients whose abnormalities were successfully treated did not snore less frequently.

Answer 7

(B) The patients’ throat surgery was not undertaken to treat abnormalities in their throat muscles.
- The reason why they underwent surgery just doesn’t matter. They got the surgery. After their surgeries, biopsies were taken and a correlation was found. We need to explain that correlation.

(D) People who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery.
- This tells us how the surgery group compares to the non-surgery group in terms of snoring. But that’s like (B), it doesn’t tell us about the correlation we’re trying to explain.
- But even if there is a correlation within the population that did not undergo surgery, then what? Is it snoring that causes the abnormalities or is it the other way around? Still unclear – (D) doesn’t impact the argument whatever way you look at it.

Question 8

Medications with an unpleasant taste are generally produced only in tablet, capsule, or soft-gel form. The active ingredient in medication M is a waxy substance that cannot tolerate the heat used in manufacturing tablets because it has a low melting point. So, since the company developing M does not have soft-gel manufacturing technology and manufactures all its medications itself, M will most likely be produced in soft gel form.

As the statements above are not necessarily logical/causal relationships, we would not be able to diagram the prompt.
True or false?

Answer 8

False.

Question 9

What parts of the excerpt below is context, not argument?

Jazz music has existed for over a century and is hugely influential across the world. So, it seems unlikely there would be much left to learn about what makes it resonate with people. Yet, musicologists have recently discovered a new rhythm that seems to generate a powerful sense of excitement. Jazz musicians in New Orleans have been observed to use this unique rhythm to electrify their performances.

Answer 9

Context: Jazz music has existed for over a century and is hugely influential across the world. So, it seems unlikely there would be much left to learn about what makes it resonate with people.

Conclusion: Yet, musicologists have recently discovered a new rhythm that seems to generate a powerful sense of excitement.

Premise: Jazz musicians in New Orleans have been observed to use this unique rhythm to electrify their performances.

Question 10

Separate the concession point, the premise, and the conclusion:

Despite heavy usage of antibiotics in hospitals over the past few decades, there hasn’t been an exponential surge in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Furthermore, even if the use of antibiotics doubled for the next few decades, it would have little impact on creating more resistant strains. Consequently, the fears of a looming antibiotic resistance crisis seem overblown.

Answer 10

Concession point: Despite heavy usage of antibiotics in hospitals over the past few decades…

Premise: …there hasn’t been an exponential surge in antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Premise (imbedded Concession): Furthermore, even if the use of antibiotics doubled for the next few decades, it would have little impact on creating more resistant strains.

Conclusion: Consequently, the fears of a looming antibiotic resistance crisis seem overblown.

Question 11

What are the three steps to parsing out comparative grammar?

Answer 11

Step 1. What are the two things/subjects that we’re comparing? (Identify A vs B)

Step 2. What is the quality or the characteristic that is being compared (re A vs B)?
- Can think of this as the context that makes A and B relevant to each other
- Ex: “People are more scared of strangers than they are of monsters.” Here “strangers” and “monsters” are relevant to each other because people are scared of both of them and that is being compared.

Step 3. Identify the “winner” (Does A or B come out on top in the comparison?)

Question 12

How to find the core structure of sentences with heavy modifiers?

Answer 12

Focus on the object-predicate. In other words, focus on the “that”.

Example:
The cats discovered that the food dish replenishes itself whenever the pedal at the bottom of the dish is pressed
^ the above sentence can be understood as “the cats discovered that.” “That” equates to the rest of the details that supplements but does not change the primary message of the sentence.

Question 13

What is being compared?
What is the quality being compared?

A complicated hotel security system costs more in customer goodwill than it saves in losses by theft.

Answer 13

Step 1. Identify A vs. B.
A: cost in customer goodwill
vs.
B: saves in losses by theft

Step 2. Identify what we’re comparing
For a complicated hotel security system, which one is more?

Step 3. Identify the “winner.”
A, cost in customer goodwill is more.

Question 14

A → B
A —m→ C
________
B ←s→ C

From the lesson on the relationships between the quantifiers, we know that the “all” arrow implies the “most” arrow which means that “A → B” implies “A —m→ B.”

Answer 14

When we see “A → B”, we can automatically assume it means:
“A —m→ B” and “A —s→ B”
Therefore, we can see it as:
A → B
A —m→ B
A —s→ B
A —m→ C
________
B ←s→ C

We know:
A —m→ B
A —m→ C
________
B ←s→ C

If ALL of the A set has membership in the B set, we can assume the status “MOST of the A set has membership in the B set” and “SOME the A set has membership in the B set” must be true as well. (Since “most” and “some” are covered under “all”.)

Question 15

Remember three traps:
1. Sufficient failed yields no information about the necessary.
2. Necessary satisfied yields no information about the sufficient.
3. Do not confuse sufficiency for necessity.

Question 16

Only roses are red. Only thorny things are red. There’s a red thing in the flower garden.

“Some roses are thorny.”
Can we make the above inference?

Answer 16

Yes.

Rose —-> Red
Thorny —-> Red

We can also make the below inferences:
1. There’s a rose in the flower garden.
2. There’s a thorny thing in the flower garden.
3. Some roses are thorny.

Note: Two most relationships imply a “some” relationship.
Although there isn’t a “most” relationship here, remember that “all” implies “most”.

Question 17

Why does Presumption of Truth matter?

What impact does it functionally have on the options/questions?

Answer 17

It impacts, and thus matters to the logic, in that it changes the direction of the basis of proof.

This direction is decided by the question stem (i.e., question type).

Ex: “If we assume the below options to be true, which option most weakens the above statement?”
^In this case, the options enjoy Presumption of Truth; the prompt statement does not.
The options are then used to question the logic of the prompt.

Ex: “Which of the below options is most strongly supported by the statements above?”
^In this case, the prompt statement enjoys Presumption of Truth.
We then check the options against the prompt statement, using the prompt statement as the evidence/proof.

Question 18

Most Before All vs All Before Most

if the all arrow shows up first in the chain and then you see the most arrow, there are no valid conclusions to be drawn via the chain.

A —m→ B → C yields valid conclusions via the chain. (Conclusion: A —m—> C)
A → B —m→ C yields no valid conclusions via the chain. (Conclusion: none)

Answer 18

A —m→ B → C:
We know that most of the A set falls into the B set; we also know that ANY member of the B set will also be in the C set.
This means that any of the A set (those covered by the “most”) that fall into the B set will simultaneously be in the C set by virtue of membership in the B set.

A → B —m→ C:
Even if all of A set falls into B set, we cannot guarantee that it will overlap with ‘most of the B set’ since A set could be tiny relative to the B set.
For example, even if ALL of A set’s members are in B set but that only accounts for 1% of the B set, MOST of the B set falling into the C set could easily not include anyone in the A set.

Question 19

Some before All vs. All before Some:

A ←s→ B → C yields valid conclusions via the chain. (Conclusion: A <— s —> C)

A → B ←s→ C yields no valid conclusions via the chain. (Conclusion: none)

Answer 19

From the lesson on the relationships between the quantifiers, you know that the “most” arrow implies the “some” arrow which means that “A —m→ B” implies “A ←s→ B.” Given that the previous argument is invalid and we can transform this argument into the previous one, then this one must be invalid as well.

Another way you can see this is to think about how strong your premises need to be to support a conclusion. B —m→ C is stronger than B ←s→ C. If the stronger premise can’t even support the conclusion, then of course the weaker premise cannot either.

This argument also looks similar to a valid formal argument where a some arrow precedes the all arrow. In that argument, we can draw a valid conclusion via the chain.

Question 20

A —m→ B —m→ C yields no valid conclusions via the chain.
We cannot make any inferences about the relationship between A and C via this chain.

We CANNOT infer that A ←s→ C

Notice that this NOT the same as:
A —m→ B
A —m→ C
———
B ←s→ C

Answer 20

We know from the logic of ‘All Before Most (A → B —m→ C)’ that even when ALL of A set falls into B set, the relationship between B set and C set (most of B set falls into C set) cannot be cross-applied between the A set and C set. Because:

1. We cannot guarantee the A set is the same size as B set and C set; the A set may be tiny relative to the latter two.
2. Even if we drop everyone from the A set into the B set, the B set is still overwhelmingly made up of members not from the A set.
3. When the “most” scoop comes to pick members from B to C, it may or may not capture any As.

Therefore, it is even less likely to be valid that ‘most of A set falls into B set’ would yield any valid conclusions between A set and C set.

Question 21

A ←s→ B ←s→ C yields no valid conclusions via this chain.
We CANNOT infer A ←s→ C.

Answer 21

From the logic of ‘All Before Most’ and ‘Some Before Most’:

1. We know no valid conclusions can be drawn when we cannot guarantee ALL members of the two sets are 1:1 in the first relationship (i.e., EVERY member of A is simultaneously in the B set)
2. Both ‘All Before Most’ and ‘Most Before Most’ do not yield any valid conclusions.
3. As ‘All’ already covers ‘Most’ and ‘Some’, we can already know that ‘Some Before Most’ cannot yield any valid conclusions.

Question 22

Psuedo-sufficient Assumption question.

The camp has a non-negotiable three-strike policy for late attendance; however, if a reason is given on the third strike whereby any reasonable person who is unaware they might be late would be unable to be on time given those circumstances, the third strike can be forgiven. Jay’s late attendance was forgiven.

What best supports this conclusion?

(A) Jay was unaware he might be late and any reasonable person could see he could not have made it on time. One of the counselors mentioned Jay could be on his third strike.
(B) Jay’s reason for being late left no doubt that no reasonable person could have made it on time.
(C) Jay is on his third strike; given the circumstances, Jay could not have foreseen he would be late and anyone can reasonably see he could not have made it on time.
(D) Jay did not know he was going to be late and no one could reasonably expect him to be on time given his circumstances.
(E) Jay is on his third strike. Though he reasonably expected he might be late, he could not be responsible for it since any reasonable person could see he could not have made it on time.

Answer 22

Answer = (C)

Remember there is a hierarchy in any condition/assumption/logical relationship.

Here, the top priority is whether this is Jay’s third strike; if it’s not, none of the other conditions/assumptions would follow OR even matter if they are true.
‘The third strike’ dictates the domain in which the rule begins to be applicable.

The prompt says there is forgiveness for the third strike but that doesn’t mean it applies to all late attendance.

(C) is stronger than (A) in that the whether Jay is on his third strike in (A) is actually not fully supported. We know a counselor is OF THE OPINION that Jay is on his third strike.
In (C), it is stated as fact that Jay is on his third strike.

Question 23

Remember there is a big difference:
A —m→ B —m→ C
VS
A—m→ C
A—m→ B

The first one yields NO valid conclusions.
The latter yields the conclusion:
B ←s→ C

Answer 23

We know most of A set falls into B set; we know most of A set simultaneously falls into C set.

As ‘Most’ means any range more than ‘Some’ and less than ‘All’ (can assume it covers more than 50% of A Set), this means there will be a non-zero overlap (at least one) between B set and C set by virture of MOST of A set falling into B set and C set at the same time.

For example: 51% of A set falls into B set and 51% of A set falls into C set. Even if we assume the lowest possibility, there will at least be 1% of A set that has membership in B set and C set simultaneously.

Question 24

For Weaken Questions.

The correct answer must fulfill the task of directly weakening the relationship between the premise and the conclusion in the prompt.

What are key indicators of whether an option is on task?

Answer 24

The identifiers (domain) of the option must DIRECTLY address the same level/identifier (domain) of the prompt.

For example, the prompt says ‘a dog barked when it was given ten steaks but did not did not bark when it was given one steak.’

An option that says ‘dogs only bark when they are given their favorite food’ would be less relevant as the difference in identifiers lies in the QUANTITY of the food given.

Question 25

What are the formal negations for the below?

1. ALL A are B
2. SOME A are B
3. MOST A are B

Answer 25

1. ALL A are B, negated: SOME A are NOT B.
   Original: All A are B
   Negated: Some A are not B
   Original: A → B
   Negated: A ←s→ /B
2. SOME A are B, negated: NO A are B.
   Original: Some A are B
   Negated: No A are B
   Original: A ←s→ B
   Negated: A → /B
3. MOST A are B, negated: It’s NOT the case that most A are B.
   Original: Most A are B.
   Negated: It’s not the case that most A are B.
   Negated: Anywhere from none to exactly half of A are B.

Question 26

Why are the implications of the below two formal logic chains different?
A —m→ B —m→ C
VS
A—m→ C
A—m→ B

Note:
A —m→ B —m→ C
—
No inferences.

A—m→ C
A—m→ B
—
B ←s→ C

Answer 26

Remember that the first notation (A —m→ B —m→ C) simply means:
A —m→ B
B —m→ C
The notation does not necessarily indicate any other connection between A and C.
If the only information we have re any potential membership of A in C is by virtue of A’s membership (most) in B, it requires us to know B’s relative group difference compared to A and C respectively in order to get to that inference. (Formal logic, on its own, is not able to provide that level of information)

On the other hand, the second notation (A—m→ C ; A—m→ B) already provides the relationship between A and B/C respectively.
It is through the provided relationship of A-B (most) and A-C (most) that we can infer the relationship between B and C; this inference can be made by virtue of the relationship both B and C already have with A.

Question 27

Shark teeth are amongst the most common vertebrate fossils; yet fossilized shark skeletons are much less common—indeed, comparatively rare among fossilized vertebrate skeletons.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent paradox above?

(A) Unlike the bony skeletons of other vertebrates, shark skeletons are composed of cartilage, and teeth and bone are much more likely to fossilize than cartilage is.
(B) The rare fossilized skeletons of sharks that are found are often found in areas other than those in which fossils of shark teeth are plentiful.
(C) The rare fossilized skeletons of sharks that are found are often found in areas other than those in which fossils of shark teeth are plentiful.
(D) The rare fossilized skeletons of sharks that are found are often found in areas other than those in which fossils of shark teeth are plentiful.
(E) The physical and chemical processes involved in the fossilization of sharks’ teeth are as common as those involved in the fossilization of shark skeletons.

Answer 27

Answer = (A)

(A) dispels the naive assumption that we, lay people, brought in to generate the “apparent paradox.” The assumption is that shark teeth and shark skeleton are similar for the purposes of fossilization. (A) disanalogizes shark teeth and shark skeletons by explaining that shark skeletons are composed primarily of cartilage, not bone, and that teeth and bone fossilize much more commonly than cartilage does. Note that the difference is given in terms of propensity for fossilization; this difference is relevant to the stimulus, and thus it resolves the apparent paradox.

(B) is baiting you into making an additional assumption in order for it to explain the phenomena; for example, imagine if not only are skeletons and teeth found in different places, but sharkologists didn’t know this until recently, and up until then, they had only been looking in places where teeth are found. They were looking in the wrong place all along, and that’s why they haven’t found many shark skeletons relative to teeth. That’s a lot to assume! Someone who doesn’t like (B) could come along and just as easily assume the opposite — that sharkologists have always known the common locations of both shark teeth and skeletons, but still found more teeth than skeletons. This would further muddy the apparent paradox, not explain it.

Question 28

Waller: If there were really such a thing as extrasensory perception, it would be generally accepted by the public, since anyone with extrasensory powers would be able to convince the general public of its existence by clearly demonstrating those powers. Indeed, anyone who was recognized to have such powers would achieve wealth and renown.

Chin: It’s impossible to demonstrate anything to the satisfaction of all skeptics. So long as the cultural elite remains closed-minded to the possibility of extrasensory perception, the popular media reports, and thus public opinion, will always be biased in favor of the skeptics.

Waller’s and Chin’s statements commit them to disagreeing on whether:

(A) extrasensory perception is a real phenomenon.
(B) extrasensory perception, if it were a real phenomenon, could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all skeptics.
(C) skeptics about extrasensory perception have a weak case.
(D) the failure of the general public to believe in extrasensory perception is good evidence against its existence.
(E) the general public believes that extrasensory perception is a real phenomenon.

Answer 28

Answer = (D)

One might assume Waller either explicitly states (B) or that it’s strongly implied by his claims, but that’d be wrong; in fact, Waller expresses no opinion on this. What Waller says is that if ESP was real, it would generally be accepted by the public.That’s not the same thing as “demonstrated to the satisfaction of all skeptics.”

Note that (B) states the “… could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of ALL skeptics.” Waller’s conclusion, one would notice, was never that ALL skeptics would be convinced; Waller’s conclusion is only that ‘people would generally accept ESP IF ESP were real.’

Waller strongly implied that (D) is true. Waller says, “if there really were such a thing as ESP, it would be generally accepted by the public.” Contraposing that claim, we get that if the general public doesn’t believe in ESP, then it probably doesn’t exist.

Question 29

A bacterial species will inevitably develop greater resistance within a few years to any antibiotics used against it, unless those antibiotics eliminate that species completely.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the statement above?

(A) It is unlikely that any antibiotic can be developed that will completely eliminate bacterial species X.
(B) If any antibiotic now on the market is used against bacterial species X, that species will develop greater resistance to it within a few years.
(C) The only way of completely eliminating bacterial species X is by a combination of two or more antibiotics now on the market.
(D) The only way of completely eliminating bacterial species X is by a combination of two or more antibiotics now on the market.
(E) Bacterial species X is more resistant to at least some antibiotics that have been used against it than it was before those antibiotics were used against it.

Answer 29

Answer = (B)

(B) is an exact restatement of our analysis above. This answer choice identifies the proper subset of antibiotics and says that if that subset is used against bacterial species X, that species will develop greater resistance to it. Here, we see the blurry line between a claim that is really, really strongly supported and a claim that must be true.

In terms of (E), we have a comparative statement and we need to parse out the grammar. At its core, this is a comparison of time. It’s comparing now v. before. Before what? Before we used some antibiotic against X. And what are we comparing? X’s resistance now v. in the past. And what are we claiming? That it’s more resistant now. That there must be some antibiotic such that bacterial species X is more resistant to it now than it was prior to its use.

(E) doesn’t specify how much time has passed. What if the antibiotic was used yesterday? Or even last month? That wouldn’t be enough time to develop resistance since the stimulus stated that it takes years. Merely consistent.

Be VERY careful when the prompt and the options DO NOT share the exact identifiers. This is a sign that the support lended by the prompt is much diluted or might even be irrelevant = un-supported = we simply don’t know.

Question 30

Separate the concession point, the premise, and the conclusion:

Despite heavy usage of antibiotics in hospitals over the past few decades, there hasn’t been an exponential surge in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Furthermore, even if the use of antibiotics doubled for the next few decades, it would have little impact on creating more resistant strains. Consequently, the fears of a looming antibiotic resistance crisis seem overblown.

Answer 30

Don’t get too tied down to the idea of following form. When you need to find the “roles” (what function does each portion fulfill), the easier thing is to focus on what message it’s trying to say. Think of smth like a one sentence summary; the conclusion should be more clear after that.

Concession point: Despite heavy usage of antibiotics in hospitals over the past few decades…

Premise: …there hasn’t been an exponential surge in antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Premise (imbedded Concession): Furthermore, even if the use of antibiotics doubled for the next few decades, it would have little impact on creating more resistant strains.

Conclusion: Consequently, the fears of a looming antibiotic resistance crisis seem overblown.

Question 31

Although some nutritional facts about soft drinks are listed on their labels, exact caffeine content is not. Listing exact caffeine content would make it easier to limit, but not eliminate, one’s caffeine intake. If it became easier for people to limit, but not eliminate, their caffeine intake, many people would do so, which would improve their health.

If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?

(A) The health of at least some people would improve if exact caffeine content were listed on soft-drink labels.
(B) Many people will be unable to limit their caffeine intake if exact caffeine content is not listed on soft-drink labels.
(C) Many people will find it difficult to eliminate their caffeine intake if they have to guess exactly how much caffeine is in their soft drinks.
(D) People who wish to eliminate, rather than simply limit, their caffeine intake would benefit if exact caffeine content were listed on soft-drink labels.
(E) The health of at least some people would worsen if everyone knew exactly how much caffeine was in their soft drinks.

Answer 31

Answer = (A)

Answer Choice (B) Many people will be unable to limit their caffeine intake if exact caffeine content is not listed on soft-drink labels.
In other words, “If exact caffeine content is not listed on soft-drink labels, then many people will be unable to limit their caffeine intake.” We don’t know if this is true. What we do know is that listing exact caffeine content will make it easier to limit intake, so presumably not listing exact caffeine content will make it harder to limit, but there’s a big difference between “harder to limit” (comparative) and “unable to limit.”

Answer Choice (C) Many people will find it difficult to eliminate their caffeine intake if they have to guess exactly how much caffeine is in their soft drinks.
In other words, “If people have to guess exactly how much caffeine is in their soft drinks, then many people will find it difficult to eliminate their caffeine intake.” The stimulus makes no mention of the sufficient condition, “people have to guess.” What would happen if people had to guess? We don’t know. We do know what would happen if caffeine content was listed, but not listing exact caffeine content doesn’t mean that people would have to guess to determine caffeine content. There could be multiple other ways for people to determine this apart from it being listed on the label. You could google it. Or maybe there’s an app that tells you caffeine content.

(C) also suffers from the same issue we identified already in (B). There’s a difference between easier or harder to limit (comparative) and difficult to eliminate.

Question 32

Council member: The profits downtown businesses will increase if more consumers live in the downtown area, and a decrease in the cost of living in the downtown area will guarantee the number of consumers living there will increase. However, the profit of downtown businesses will not increase unless downtown traffic congestion decreases.

If all the council member’s statements are true, which one of the following must be true?

(A) If downtown traffic congestion decreases, the number of consumers living in the downtown area will increase.
(B) If the cost of living in the downtown area decreases, the profits of downtown businesses will increase.
(C) If the downtown traffic congestion decreases, the cost of living in the downtown area will increase.
(D) If the downtown traffic congestion decreases, the cost of living in the downtown area will decrease.
(E) If the downtown traffic congestion decreases, the cost of living in the downtown area will increase.

Answer 32

Answer = (B)