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 25, 2007, 03:55:13 PM »
I can't figure out why I'm not getting this... obviously has to do with #s here but I can't understand why C is wrong.
Comets do not give off their own light but reflect light from other sources, such as the Sun. Scientists estimate the mass of comets by their brightness: the greater a comet's mass, the more light that comet will reflect. A satellite probe, however, has revealed that the material of which Halley's comet is composed reflects 60 times less light per unit of mass than had been previously thought.
The statements above, if true, give the most support to which one of hte following?
(B) Previous estimates of the mass of Halley's comet which were based on its brightness were too low
(C) The total amount of light reflected from Halley's comet is less than scientists had previously thought
These both appear to be true to me. What am I doing wrong here?
« on: November 25, 2007, 03:28:24 PM »
One reason why European music has had such a strong influence throughout the world, and why it is a sophisticated achievement, is that over time the original function of the music - whether ritual, dance or worship - gradually became an aspect of its style, not its defining force. Dance music could stand independnet of dance, for example, and sacred music independent of religious worship, because each composition has so much internal coherence that the music ultimately depends on nothing but itself.
The claims made above are compatible with each of the following except:
(D) Music that is unintelligible when it is presented independently of its original function tends to be the most sophisticated music
Can this be understood as a diagram? If so, is it: Unintelligible ---> most sophisticated
versus the stimulus which says: Intelligible/Coherent ---> sophisticated
If so... aren't these logically unrelated and not necessarily incompatible with one another?
« on: November 25, 2007, 03:19:19 PM »
Having trouble rationalizing two answers to this:
Letter to the editor: your article on effective cockroach control states that vexone is effective against only one of the more than 4,000 cockroach species that infest North America: the German cockroach. In actuality, vexone has been utilized effectively for almost a decade against all of the species that infest North America. In testing our product Roach Ender, which contains vexone, we have conducted many well-documented studies that prove this fact.
Each of the following statements conflicts with the letter writer's view EXCEPT:
(C) Every species of cockroach that infests North America can be controlled by vexone
(E) Roach ender was tested against exactly 4,000 cockroach species that infest North America
I get why C is the right answer, but I don't get why E is necessarily wrong. Sure, it says "exactly" vs. the "more than 4,000" stated in the stimulus - but isn't that only referring to vexone and not necessarily the product? It doesn't look like E violates the stimulus at all... isn't it possible that it could be true?
« on: November 25, 2007, 03:10:55 PM »
I managed to narrow it down to two answer choices, and then chose the wrong one. But I don't know why, I can't wrap my head around the correct AC. It'd be awesome if someone could help me out here.
Dr. Schilling: Those who advocate replacing my country's private health insurance system with nationalized health insurance because of the rising costs of medical care fail to consider the high human costs that consumers pay in countries with nationalized insurance: access to high-technology medicine is restricted. Kidney transplants and open-heart surgery - familiar life-saving procedures - are rationed. People are denied their right to treatments they want and need.
Dr. Laforte: Your country's reliance on private health insurance denies access even to basic conventional medicine to the many people who cannot afford adequate health coverage. With nationalized insurance, rich and poor have equal access to life-saving medical procedures, and people's right to decent medical treatment regardless of income is not violated.
Dr. Schilling's and Dr. Laforte's statements provide the most support for holding that they would disagree about the truth of which one of the following?
(A) People's rights are violated less when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds
(D) In countries with nationalized health insurance, no one who needs a familiar medical treatment in order to stay alive is denied that treatment
A is the right response. I've tried to insert info from the stimulus to figure out what each doctor's say would be on this issue, but I can't quite get it right. My head is hurting... any help would be great, thanks.
« on: November 19, 2007, 09:39:29 AM »
June 1992, section 3, question 6
As air-breathing mammals, whales must once have lived on land and needed hind limbs capable of supporting the mammal's weight. Whales have the bare remnants of a pelvis. Ifanimals have a pelvis, we expect them to have hind limbs. A newly discovered fossilized whale skeleton has very fragile hind limbs that could not have supported the animal's weight on land. This skeleton had a partial pelvis.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following, if true, wold most strogly support the conclusion that the fragile hind limbs are remnants of limbs that land-dwelling whales once had?
(A) Whale bones older than the fossilized hind limbs confirm that ancient whales had full pelvises.
(B) No skeletons of ancient whales with intact hind limbs capable of supporting the mammals' weight have ever been found
(C) Scientists are uncertain whether the apparently nonfunctioning limbs of other early mammals derived from once-functioning limbs of their ancestors
(D) Other large bodied mammals like seals and sea lions maneuver on beaches and rocky coasts without fully functioning hind limbs
(E) Some smaller sea-dwelling mammals such as modern dolphins, have no visible indications of hind limbs
The CR is A. I don't get how you can justify such a conclusion about this fragmented piece of whale scrap when it seems like there are a thousand assumptions going on. and why is the CR right over the other ACs anyway?
« on: November 15, 2007, 08:32:46 PM »
Are there any published explanations for this out there? Or for that matter, have there been any published explanations for any of the 2000s?
« on: November 09, 2007, 12:54:58 PM »
September 2006, Section 2, 14
The economy is doing badly. FIrst, the real estate slump has been with us for some time. SEcond, car sales are at their lowest in years. Of course, had either one or the other phenomenon failed to occur, this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy. But, their occurrence together makes it quite probably that my conclusion is correct.
I diagrammed this as:
RE Slump + CS lowest ---> Economy is doing badly
The question stem is: WHich one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?
THe CR is: If the economy is in a healthy state, then it is unlikely that the real estate and car sales markets are both in a slump.
So I basically diagrammed the incorrect reversal of this. But how do you know which comes first? Every time I look at this stimulus, I don't see how you know whether to put the RE Slump and Car Sales as the Sufficient or the Necessary. Help please? Thanks in advance.
« on: November 08, 2007, 11:57:36 AM »
so these are the last ones i have left (June/October/December of 2005 and 2006, and June 2007). anyone recommend that i take them in a particular order until Dec 1st, or does it not really matter?
« on: November 05, 2007, 05:22:09 PM »
December 98, Sec 2, 9
The only physical factor preventing a human journey to mars has been weight. Carrying enough fuel to propel a conventional spacecraft to mars and back would make even the lightest craft too heavy to be launched from Earth. A device has recently been invented, however, that allows an otherwise conventional spacecraft to refill the craft's fuel tanks with fuel manufactured from the Martian atmosphere for the return trip. Therefore, it is possible for people to go to Mars in a spacecraft that carries this device and then return.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
TCR: THe device for manufacturing fuel for the return to Earth weighs less than teh tanks of fuel that a conventional spacecraft would otherwise need to carry from Earth for the return trip.
Unfortunately, this was answer E and I was quick to bubble in an earlier answer before getting to this. Why is this one wrong, however?
The amount of fuel needed for a spacecraft to return from Mars is the same as the amount of fuel needed to travel from Earth to Mars.
What if you needed 10,000 times the amount of fuel to return from Mars to Earth? Then that manufactured fuel wouldn't necessarily fit inside the fuel tank if it was made to fit only for the trip from Earth to Mars, right? I'm confused. Help?
« on: November 05, 2007, 05:17:12 PM »
this is from December 1999 Section 2 question 25
The judgment that an artist is great always rests on assessments of the work the artist has produced. A series of great works is the only indicator of greatness. Therefore, to say that an artist is great is just to summarize the quality of his or her known works, and the artist's greatness can provide no basis for predicting the quality of the artist's unknown or future works.
Which one of the following contains questionable reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
TCR: The only way of knowing whether someone has a cold is to observe symptoms. Thus, when a person is said to have a cold, this means only that he or she has displayed the symptoms of a cold, and no prediction about the patient's future symptoms is justified.
What's going on exactly here? I don't get it.