Score Plus

Hey Guys,

If possible help me in understanding the CR problems

Thanks in advance
Akshay

1. In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry, the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically. Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.
Each of the following is an assumption made in the argument above EXCEPT:
(a) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.
(b) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
(c) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
(d) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
(e) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

Solution:

The key to solving these questions is to find the conclusion and weed out assumptions that are contrary or not relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion here is: "Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities."

Did you notice the conviction in the author's stance here on air-pollution ? The usage of word " Should be" is pretty strong. Also, the author has already taken air-pollution to be a necessary evil. If you personalize the argument, you would notice that all options except (a) would strengthen the author's belief that air-pollution controls should be stringent. The author is least interested in the statistics of air pollution.Also , the usage of the word "almost entirely" in option (a) is too harsh and extreme. Nowhere in the stimuli does the author mentions about the causes of air pollution. The crux of the argument is: "Air pollution is evil and should be curbed rigorously. Period."

Hence option (a) is the best answer which is irrelevant to the argument.

Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.
Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author’s claims above?
I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.
II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.
III. The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000.
(a) I only
(b) II only
(c) III only
(d) I and II only
(e) I, II, and III

Solution:

Look at the question stem. "Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author’s claims above"
All the answer options are to be taken as facts. There will be information which is not in the stimuli (new information) but is relevant to the argument. Please be careful not to weed them out with the excuse that they are irrelevant to the argument.
The conclusion is the first statement : "Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers".
Now the million dollar question is: "How the average net-worth of farmers is going to affect the conclusion"
The answer is IN NO WAY.

What is not stated in the argument is at the cost of benefiting the farmers, the government is over burdening the middle and low income families with increases in prices of basic amenities. That becomes clear from the answer options.

Only statements I and II provides support to author's conclusion. Statement III though true is irrelevant to the author's argument.

Hence Option (d) is the right answer.

In many surveys, American consumers have expressed a willingness to spend up to 10 percent more for products that are ecologically sound. Encouraged by such surveys, Bleach-O Corporation promoted a new laundry detergent, Bleach-O Green, as safer for the environment. Bleach-O Green cost 5 percent more than typical detergents. After one year, Bleach-O Green had failed to capture a significant share of the detergent market and was withdrawn from sale.
Which of the following questions is LEAST likely to be relevant in determining the reasons for the failure of Bleach-O Green?
(a) How effective as a detergent was Bleach-O Green?
(b) How many other detergents on the market were promoted as safe for the environment?
(c) How much more did Bleach-O Green cost to manufacture than ordinary detergents?
(d) To what extent did consumers accept the validity of Bleach-O Green advertised and promoted to consumers?
(e) How effectively was Bleach-O Green advertised and promoted to consumers?

Solution:

I guess this question is relatively simpler to answer. Option (c) mentions cost to manufacturer while no where in the argument do we find even an inkling of an information relevant to this aspect of the detergent. The selling price is mentioned but not the cost price to the manufacturer. We are going too up the supply chain.

Option (c) stands out to be the misfit question.

The U.S. census is not perfect: thousands of Americans probably go uncounted. However, the basic statistical portrait of the nation painted by the census is accurate. Certainly some of the poor go uncounted, particularly the homeless; but some of the rich go uncounted as well, because they are often abroad or traveling between one residence and another.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
(a) Both the rich and the poor have personal and economic reasons to avoid being counted by the census.
(b) All Americans may reasonably be classified as either poor or rich.
(c) The percentage of poor Americans uncounted by the census is close to the percentage of rich Americans uncounted.
(d) The number of homeless Americans is approximately equal to the number of rich Americans.
(e) The primary purpose of the census is to analyze the economic status of the American population.

Solution:

This seems to be a tougher question.
The conclusion is the SECOND statement: " the basic statistical portrait of the nation painted by the census is accurate".
I initially thought it to be option (d) but then there are flaws in this option.

You would agree with me that options (a) & (e) can be outrightly rejected.
Option (b) is suspect because of the usage of the word 'All', which is again too broad in scope for the argument.
Nowhere in the argument do we find the division of America on the basis of economic status of the population.

Option (c) & (d) boils down to numeric.
A percentage is a true depiction of statistics than a number when we do not have facts in our hands to come to a conclusion with conviction.

Hence, option (c) is a better answer than option (d).

In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.
(a) I only
(b) I and III only
(c) II only
(d) I, II, and III
(e) III only


Solution:

An inference question is a "must - be-true" question. The answer must pass the fact test to qualify as the right answer.
There should be no ambiguity in the verity of the answer judged from the information given in the argument. This question type belongs to that family where the question stimuli is taken to be true without any question. Any external information in the answer options should immediately raise brows.

Statement II is a judgment and not a fact. The usage of the word 'should' makes the statement a judgment. It certainly does not passes the fact test. No where in the stimuli is such an information mentioned.

Statement III is too broad and out of scope (Notice the usage of the words like : 'Most' , 'are')

Only Statement I infers the conclusion of the argument. It passes the fact test with distinction !!
There is no ambiguity.

The answer has to be option (a)