I looked closely, the bus one paralled the stimulus quite well. It had something like: if she was on time she probably took the bus. She was on time, so it is very unlikely that she missed her bus. Something like that. And i remember the stimulus dealt with probabilities as well.
does the scenario someone posted earlier about a lottery and fairness question ring any bells?
have we confirmed that the paradox between new safety regulations and higher number of car accident deaths was from a preivous test?
both of these sound vaguely familiar to me.
it's possible that the lottery/fairness was a wrong answer to the party/late - bus/work question, but when i chose the lottery answer, i remember thinking there was a very tempting screwed up contrapositive. is it possible that the late for bus/late for work response is wrong? does anyone remember *realllly* looking closely and thinking it through?
or did i just spaz?
missed bus was the answer. stimulus was something very close to "if juan is at the party, maria will probably not have a good time. juan was at the party, so maria did not have a good time."
but compare your stimulus to what's on the PM, and then compare to what lonewolf said. i think it's possible that the stimulus was a "if x, then y. if not y, then not x," and that the bus answer choice was a "if she was on time, she took the bus. she was not on time, so she did not take the bus." = false contrapositive.
the bus answer was tempting because the other options were not even clear 'if x, then y, if not y then not x' scenarios-- EXCEPT the lottery answer. the diction was v. convoluted, making it an unappealing choice, but i really think the logic followed the juan/maria stimulus.