This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - halftheloop
« on: November 30, 2007, 11:45:15 AM »
The ancient Romans understood the principles of water powerr very well, and in some outlying parts of their empire they made extensive and excellent use of water as an energy source. This makes it all the more striking that the ROmans made do without water power in regions dominated by large cities.
Which one of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of the difference described above in the Romans' use of water power?
(A) The ancient Romans were adept at constructing and maintaining aqueducts that could carry quantities of water sufficient supply large cities over considerable distances
(E) in heavily popuolated areas the introduction of water power would have been certain to cause social unrest by depriving large numbers of people of their livelihood.
I got this right through elimination, but it was a tough choice between these two. First of all, it seems like they're assuming i know some stuff about how water systems work, and i definitely do not. To me, aqueducts mean nothing to me except some kind of irrigation system, which means that A would make sense because that would explain why Romans could "make do without water power." E on the other hand, also makes sense (and obviously does because it's the CR) but what made me hesitant about it was the "large numbers" and i wasn't sure if this could mean one small section of society or "the majority" of society. Anyway, this one was weird, can i hear some other thoughts on this?
« on: November 30, 2007, 11:16:07 AM »
Section 3, 19
Amy McConnell is considering running for election against the incumbent, Gregory Lutz. If Lutz has a large campaign fund, then he is already far ahead, and McConnell will not run against him. If Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, McConnell will scrutinize Lutz's record for any hints of scandal that she could use against him. Anything of a scandolous nature would increase McConnell's chances of winning, and she would campaign for election. If Lutz has a clean record, however, McConnell will not run against him.
Given the information in the passage, which one of the following must be false?
(C) Lutz's record contains scandalous items, and McConnell does not run against him.
(D) Lutz's record contains nothing that would increase McConnell's chances of winning, and she runs against him.
I could not decide between these two. I don't know if this might be where I'm wrong, but isn't running against Lutz the same thing as campaigning for election? If so, It looks to me as though both C and D violate the last two sentences of the stimulus.
Section 3, 25
Proposals for extending the U.S. school year would bring it more in line with its European and Japanese counterparts are often met with the objection that curtailing the schools' three month summer vacation would violate an established U.S. tradition dating from the 19th century. However, this objection misses its mark. True, in the 19th century the majority of schools closed for three months every summer, but only beacuse they were in rural areas where successful harvests depended on children's labor. If any policy could be justified by those appeals to tradition, it would be the policy of determining the length of the school year according to the needs of the economy.
Which one of the following principles, if accepted, would provide the strongest justification for the conclusion?
(D) Traditional principles should be discarded when they no longer serve the needs of the economy
(E) The actual tradition embodied in a given practice can be accurately identified only by reference to the reasons that originally prompted that practice
I couldn't decide between these two. The point of these principle questions are so that the principle I choose brings me directly to the conclusion, is that correct? I chose D : is the reason why it's wrong because I mistakenly thought the last sentence was the conclusion, whereas the real conclusion is "however, this objection misses the mark."? And therefore E is what justifies THAT conclusion? Please explain if you can, thanks very much.
« on: November 29, 2007, 06:19:29 PM »
Leona: if the average consumption of eggs in the U.S. were cut in half, an estimated 5,000 lives might be saved each year.
Thomas: How can that be? That would mean that if people adopt this single change in diet for ten years, the population ten years from now will be greater by 50,000 people than it otherwise would have been.
Which one of the following is a statement that Leona could offer Thomas to clarify her own claim and to address the point he has ade?
CR: It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so - even if they died for some other reason.
I got this right through POE but i have no idea what the hell the CR is saying. Translation please?
« on: November 29, 2007, 04:09:27 PM »
#10: I was debating betweeen D and E and ended up choosing D. Doesn't the author in fact want ot show that the traditional approach to classifying the African art has been based on some faulty assumptions (i.e. studying art limited to the geographic area populated by a tribe) ? I felt that E was a little too strong... that the entire passage wasn't focused on showing that those historians are "mistaken" persay, but that they should be widening their approach a little bit or at least take up some of those suggestions he presents in the last paragraph.
14: Why is C wrong?!
« on: November 29, 2007, 04:04:26 PM »
The simultaneous and apparently independent development in several ancient cultures of a myth of creatures who were half human and half horse parallels the increased use of horses in these cultures. But despite the nobility and gentleness traditionally ascribed to the horse, the mythical half-horse, half-humans were frequently portrayed as violent and savage. Many human cultures use myth to express unconscious thoughts, so these mythical creatures obviously reflect people's unconscious fear of the horse.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument:
a. fails to show that the mythical creature mentioned represents the horse in people's minds
d. fails to demonstrate that the myth was not borrowed from one of the cultures by the others
I was stuck between these two, turns out A is the right answer. Can someone explain the correct answer here ? Thanks
« on: November 29, 2007, 04:01:23 PM »
#17 Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without conscious awareness of what they are doing. Thus, merely establishing that nonhuman animals are intelligent will not establish that they have consciousness.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Complex, goal-oriented behavior requires intelligence
I got this one totally by luck. Can someone explain this one, thanks.
#23 Commentator: HUman behavior cannot be fully understood without niquiring into nonphysical aspects of persons. As evidence of this, I submit the following: suppose we had a complete scientific account of the physical aspects of some particular human action - every neurological, physiologial and environmental event involved. Even with all that we would obviously still not truly comprehend the action or know why it occurred.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument's reasoning?
(B) The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true
I got this by eliminating all the ohter answers but i have no idea what this actually means. I think I get that it's circular... right? Can someone explain the flaw here thanks.
« on: November 29, 2007, 08:29:15 AM »
I'm a bit confused. I thought only a few like columbia were definitely taking higher scores, but is it true that ALL of them are now taking higher scores???
« on: November 28, 2007, 09:55:10 AM »
#13: I see why A is correct, but why isn't E correct? The sentence would retain its meaning if it said, she was "unable to postulate a scientific theory describing the phenomenon of radiation..." wouldn't it?
« on: November 27, 2007, 08:35:03 PM »
I know this is a pretty trivial question, but any significant difference between the two? These are the two tests I have left, and I was wondering if anyone recommends taking one before the other... in other words, is one going to be an ego-bloater vs. killer?
« on: November 26, 2007, 06:40:18 PM »
i think this is a fairly obvious one, but for some reason i still found myself not entirely sure about the right answer. anyway here goes.
The public interest comprises many interests and the broadcast media must serve all of them. Perhaps most television viewers would prefer an action show to an opera. But a constant stream of action shows on all channels is not in the public interest. Thus, _______.
Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?
(A) broadcasters' obligations are not satisfied if they look only to popularity to decide their programming schedules
What threw me off, I think, was the "public interest." It seems pretty subjective, and at my first reading, I wrongly assumed that the interests of the television viewers themselves was equivalent to the "public interest." But seeing A, it seems that popularity is a different notion than public interest, correct? However, I can't help but think that there is an incorrect negation going on here... i'm looking at it this way, please tell me what i'm mistaking here:
Public interest --> must be served by broadcast media
Action show ---> not in public interest
Therefore: (as the CR shows) Not in public interest ---> NOT served by broadcast media
isn't this an incorrect negation?