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 - Waiting for Those Letters
« on: November 25, 2007, 08:48:33 PM »
It is obvious that one ought to have a will stating how one wishes one's estate to be distributed. This can easily be seen from the fact that, according to current laws, in the absence of a legal will distant relatives whom one has never met have a greater legal right to one's estate than one's beloved friends do.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
I narrowed it down to two. I negated both, and both seem to break down the argument. So, I was stuck.
a) No one want his or her estate to go to someone he or she has never met. If I negate this, it says that some people would want his/her estate to go to someone... So, these people don't necessarily need to have a will. So, doesn't this break the argument that a will has to be done?
d) People are generally not indifferent about how their estates are distributed.
I understood why d was right.
« on: November 25, 2007, 08:18:36 PM »
I narrowed the answer to two choices.
Ecologist: Forest fires, the vast marjoty of which are started by lightening, are not only a natural phenomenon to which all forest ecosystems are well adapted, but are required for many forests to flourish. Forest fires facilitate the opening and spreading of see pods, prevent an overabundance of insects, and promote diversity of forests by preventing certain varieties of aggressive weeds from dominating other species. In view of this, systematic attempts by human beings to prevent or control forest fires are ill-advised and shortsighted; forest fires should be left alone and allowed to burn themseleves out naturally.
The conclusion above follows logicall if which of the following is assumed?
a) Human intervention in natural processes tends to reduce the biological diversity of ecosystems.
b) Protection of forests and their ecosystems is the only legitimate reason for attempting to prevent or control forest fires.
B is the credited response. I had trouble with this b/c I was thinking that "protection of forests and their ecosystems" could fall under systematic attempts of human beings to prevent or control the forst fired. So, then I thought that what ecologists says that humane doings is NOT ill-advised and shortsighted.
A made sense to me b/c the stimulus says that that forest burning promotes diversity so human intervention would reduce the diversity and so that could be a reason why systamtic attempts by humans would be ill-advised and shortsighted. ( I know that if what I was thinking was correct that it would not be justifying the other parts of the stimulus that dealt with preventing overabundance of insects and etc).
thank you, as always.
« on: November 23, 2007, 05:52:43 PM »
A letter submitted to the editor of a national newsmagazine was written and signed by Dr. Shirley Martin who, in the text of the letter, mentions being a professor at a major North American medical school. Knowing that fewer than 5 percent of the professors at such schools are women, the editor reasons that the chances are better than 19 to 1 that the letter was written by a man.
Just of curosity, could the fact that a piece of evidence is being ignored (in that Shirley is a girl's name) be a flaw here???
I got to the correct answer by way of elimination:
Fewer than 1 in 20 of the manuscripts submitted to Argon Publishing Co. are accepted for publication. Since only 15 manuscripts were submitted last week, there is almost no chance of any of them will be accepted for publication.
« on: November 23, 2007, 05:45:11 PM »
This was an interesting one...
In Peru, ancient disturbances in the dark surface material of a desert show up as light-colored lines that are the width of a footpath and stretch for long distances. One group of lines branching out like rays from a single point crosses over curved lines that form a ver large bird figure. Interpreting the lines in the desert as landing strips for spaceship-traveling aliens, an investigator argues that they could hardly have been Inca roads, asking, "What use to the Inca would have been closely roads that ran parallel? That intersected in a sunburst pattern? That came abruptly to an end in them middle of an uninhabited plain?
Question: For someone who interprets the lines as referring to astronomical phenomena, which one of the following if true, most effectivel counters an objection that the crossing of the straight-line patterns over the bird figure shows that the two kinds of line pattern served unrelated purposes?
a) in areas that were inhabited by ancient native North American peoples, arrangements of stones have been found that mark places where sunlight falls precisely on the spring solstice, an astronomically determined date.
b) the straight lines are consistent with sight lines to points on the horizon where particular astronomical events could have been observed at certain plausible dates, and the figure could represent a constellation.
c) the straight-line pattern is part of a large connected complex of patterns of straight-line rays connecting certain points with one another.
d) Native Central American, cultures, such as that of the Maya, left behind elaborate astronomical calendars that were engraved on rocks.
e) there is evidence that the bird figure was made well before the straight-line patterns.
« on: November 22, 2007, 11:42:41 PM »
Man, I had a trouble with this preptest. I got a 162- the LR section brought me down.
Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the liklihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.
I got to the CR by elimination.
The reasoning is flawed b/c:
a) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well.
« on: November 22, 2007, 11:34:02 PM »
Each year, an official estimate of the stock of cod in the Grand Bank is announced. This estimate is obtained by averaginf two separate estimates of how many cod are available, one based on the number of the cod caught by research vessels during a once-yearly sampling of the area and the other on the average numbers of tons of cod caught by various commercial vessels per unit of fishing effort expended there in the past year- a unit of fishing effort being one kilometer of net set out in the water for one hour. In previous decades, the two esimates usually agreed closely. However, for the last decade the estimate based on commercial tonnage has been increasing markedly, by about the same amount as the sampling-based estimate has been decreasing.
If the statements in the passage are true, which one of the following is most strongly supported by them?
A) last year's official estimate was probably not much different from the official estimate ten yrs ago
How could this answer be true? The last sentence of the stimulus states that the estimates have been changing.
« on: November 22, 2007, 02:39:07 PM »
Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard as causing recession, was high preceding the recent recession, but so was the value of assests were owned by quite affluent households, and most of the debt was owned by low-income households, high household debet levels could have been the cause of the recession despite high asset values: low-income households might have decreased spending in order to pay off debts while the quite affluent ones might simply have failed to increase spending. But, in fact, quite affluent people must have owed most of the household debt, since money is not lent to those without assets. Therefore, the real cause must lie elsewhere.
Can you explain the hole in the argument?
I narrowed it down to three:
a) prior to the recent recession, middle-income households owed enoguh debt that they had begun to decrease spending.
b) the total value of the economy's household debt is exceeded by the total value of assets held by households
c) low-income households somewhat decreased their spending during the recent recession.
« on: November 22, 2007, 02:04:42 PM »
I do not understand how the correct answer weakens the argument:
Salmonella is a food-bourne microorganism that can cause intestinal illness. The illness is sometimes fatal, especially if not identified quickly and treated. Conventional Salmonella tests on food samples are slow and can miss unusual strains of the microrganism. A new test identifies the presence or absence of Salmonella by the one peice of genetic material common to all strains. Clearly, publich health officials would be well advised to replace the previous Salmonella test with the new test.
Which on of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?
I got to the correct answer by way of elimination:
b) the new tests detects the presence of salmonella at levels that are too low to pose a health risk to people.
« on: November 22, 2007, 01:46:29 PM »
What is the deal with the preptests 7-11 being so difficult? They are major confidence killers?
I could NOT do the first 4!!
Can anyone give me suggestions for this following game?
A science student has exactly four flasks- 1,2,3, and 4- orginally containing a red, blue, a green and an orange chemical, respectively. An experiment consists mixing exactly two of these chemicals together by completely emptying the contents of one of the flaks into another of the flasks. The following conditions apply:
The product of an experiment cannot be used in further experiments.
Mixing the contents of 1 and 2 produces a red chemical.
Mixing the contents of 2 and 3 produces an orange chemical.
Mixing the contents of 3 with the contents of either 1 or 4 produces a blue chemical.
Mixing the contents of 4 with the contents of either 1 or 2 produces a green chemical.
« on: November 21, 2007, 09:34:48 PM »
Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard; therefore, governments should ban all advertisements that promote smoking.
Which of the following principles, if established, most strongly supports the argument?
I narrowed it down to two:
a) advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health.
e) advertisemnts should only promote healthy products.
My problem w/ answer choice E was with the word "only." Couldn't this answer choice have include products that are not necessarily healthful but that just have neatural effect and thus are not a health hazard?? I just think the this answer choice was too limiting.
And, what's wrong with answer choice A???