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.
Messages - ssilver0210
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 23
« on: October 10, 2009, 10:34:22 PM »
First it's important to focus on the facts that were given:
A company that is satisfied with the current quality of its goods will soon find that its customers are not.
So, we know that if MegaCorp (a company) is satisfied with the current quality of its goods, then its customers will not be satisfied.
We are told that a goal of MegaCorp is meeting or exceeding customer satisfaction. So, in order to reach that goal MegaCorp will have to constantly improve upon the quality of its goods.
We know from the facts given, that when a company advances the quality of its goods, customer expectations increase. So, if MegaCorp is going to reach its goal of meeting or exceeding customer satisfaction (by constantly improving upon the quality of its goods), then customer expectation is going to increase. When the expectations increase, MagaCorp will have to again increase the quality of its goods to meet those expectations. This cycle will continue.
If MegaCorp at any time is unable to consistently increase the quality of its goods, then they will not reach their goal of meeting or exceeding customer expectations. In other words, MegaCorp's goal is possible to meet only if continuing advances in product quality are possible. (Choice C)
« on: October 10, 2009, 10:12:23 PM »
your money go less quickly if you light it directly with match.
ask your overpaid consultant how much they get for referral, then decide if believe.
This is very true.
« on: September 07, 2009, 01:06:37 AM »
We're told that only a minority of those who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice. Sometimes it is easier to understand with numbers.
Let's say there are ten people in a room. Two out of the ten engage in political action out of a sense of social justice, and the other eight engage in political action for some reason other than out of a sense of social justice. In this case we know that people who do not have a sense of justice engage in political action (8 of the 10), and we know that people who have a sense of social justice engage in political action (2 out of the 10), but we do not know that some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action. We simply do not have enough information to make that conclusion; it might be the case that the only two people in the world who have a sense of social justice are in that room, and both of them do engage in political action. So, the fact that, as it states in the stimulus, only a minority of people who have sense of social justice engages in political action, does not mean that some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action.
Similarly, we're told that most scholars are not motivated by a desire to win prestigious academic awards.
Again, let's take 10 scholars in a room. This time, 8 of the ten are not motivated to win a prestigious academic award. This means that we know for a fact that some of the scholars (2 out of 10) are motivated by a desire to win a prestigious academic award. We also know that most scholars (8 out of 10) are not motivated to win a prestigious academic award. We do not know, however, that any non-scholars are motivated to win a prestigious academic award. It might be the case, that the only people in the world who are motivated to win a prestigious academic award are the eight scholars already mentioned.
The flaws are the same because they draw conclusions based on insufficient information.
« on: August 09, 2009, 09:57:18 PM »
I don't know. They both seem to strengthen the argument. Certainly, "A" strengthens it more, as it's more on point. So no problem with the correct response. Perhaps I am reading it wrong; I'd be curious to hear from some others.
« on: August 08, 2009, 07:10:21 PM »
My pleasure; glad it was helpful.
« on: August 08, 2009, 12:33:52 AM »
The passage tells us when censorship clearly exists. Keep in mind, though, that this is not an exhaustive list; in other words, it's possible that censorship might exist outside of the scope stated in the two examples given in the passage. But the conclusion implies that if an example falls outside of the scope of the two examples in the passage, then it must not be censorship.
Choice D tells us when a deed is considered heroic. Again, logically, however, we can not assume that a deed is only heroic if it falls within the scope of the example stated in the answer choice. But the conclusion in choice D implies that an action is not heroic unless it fits the definition given. This is the same flaw stated in the passage.
A similar flaw might be something like the following: If something has sugar, it is sweet. X does not have sugar, so therefore, x is not sweet. This is flawed, because although we know that if something has sugar it is sweet, we do not know that if something does not have sugar then it will not be sweet. Because we do not know that, we can not base our conclusion that something is not sweet, simply on the fact that it does not have sugar.
« on: August 05, 2009, 09:22:39 PM »
You're correct: Choice B does slightly strengthen the argument. But read the question carefully. It asks which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument. Certainly choice B could strengthen the argument and it still could be true that choice A strengthens the argument even more than choice B strengthens it.
That's the case here. Though choice B slightly strengthens the argument, choice A strengthens it more, which is why it is the correct response.
« on: July 21, 2009, 09:20:09 PM »
This advice is quite on point.
« on: July 21, 2009, 09:15:13 PM »
Are you certain that D is incorrect?
« on: July 11, 2009, 04:12:53 AM »
Sure thing. Yup, this one was all about the details.
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 23