Strengthen Questions

[smiley111]

Hi Guys - can anyone help me with these strengthening questions Id really really appreciate the help - thanks alot

Combustion of gasoline in automobile engines produces benzene, a known carcinogen. Environmentalists propose replacing gasoline with methanol, which does not produce significant quantities of benzene when burned. However, combustion of methanol produces formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. Therefore the environmentalist's proposal holds little merit.

which one of the following if true most supports the environmentalists' proposal?

D - formaldehyde is a less potent carcinogen than benzene
E - since methanol is water soluble, methanol spills are more damaging to the environment than gasoline spills

D is correct but I dont understand why



A physician who is too thorough in conducting a medical check up is likely to subject the patient to the discomfort of unnecessary tests. One who is not thorough enough is likely to miss some serious problem and therefore give the patient a false sense of security. It is difficult for physicians to judge how thorough they should be.
Therefore it is generally unwise for patients to have medical check ups when they do not feel ill.

 
which one of the following would provide the most support  for the conclusion?
 
B - sometimes unneccessary tests cause healthy people to become ill
C - some patients refuse to accept a physician's assurance that the patient is healthy
D - the more complete the series of tests performed in a medical check up the more likely it is that a rare disease if present will be discovered
E - physicians eliminate the need to order certain tests by carefully questioning patients and rejecting some possibilities on that basis
 
B is correct and I am clueless as to why it is and as to why the rest are wrong

[Emerica]

For the first question... the environmentalist is saying
1. Engines currently use gasoline the produces, benzene- "a known carcinogen"
2. Engines should switch to methanol... because it produces less benzene.
 The critic of the environmentalist's argument says:
1. methanol produces formaldehyde, a known carcinogen
2. The environmentalist's proposal holds little merit.

To strengthen the enviornmentalist's argument you have to conclude that:
1. The enviornmentalists wants to switch because methanol doesn't cause "as much" harm.

It's just like the government wanting people to get more miles per gallon because it's "less harmful" to the environment.

Hope this helps 

[Angry Gorilla]

...Therefore the environmentalist's proposal holds little merit.

which one of the following if true most supports the environmentalists' proposal?

This is not a strengthen question.  Do you see why?

A physician who is too thorough in conducting a medical check up is likely to subject the patient to the discomfort of unnecessary tests. One who is not thorough enough is likely to miss some serious problem and therefore give the patient a false sense of security. It is difficult for physicians to judge how thorough they should be.
Therefore it is generally unwise for patients to have medical check ups when they do not feel ill.

 
which one of the following would provide the most support  for the conclusion?
 
B - sometimes unneccessary tests cause healthy people to become ill
C - some patients refuse to accept a physician's assurance that the patient is healthy
D - the more complete the series of tests performed in a medical check up the more likely it is that a rare disease if present will be discovered
E - physicians eliminate the need to order certain tests by carefully questioning patients and rejecting some possibilities on that basis
 
B is correct and I am clueless as to why it is and as to why the rest are wrong

The conclusion is that if you don't feel sick you shouldn't go to the doc.  You also know that doctors sometimes perform unnecessary tests.

C - who cares if some patients don't trust their doctor.  Does that support that the rest of society shouldn't go?

D - Doesn't this hurt the conclusion that you should stay home when you don't feel ill?  OMG, you might be missing out on a diagnosis for a rare disease!

E - what does it matter if they eliminate certain tests?  We still know they sometimes do too many and sometimes too few.

B - You shouldn't go to the doc if you don't feel sick because going to the doctor means risking unnecessary tests AND "sometimes unnecessary tests cause healthy people to become ill."  Looks like a winner to me.

[River]

Combustion of gasoline ---benzene, a known carcinogen.
Environmentalists -- methanol-- not benzene when burned:--Proposal
methanol---formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

Therefore the environmentalist's proposal holds little merit.

Change the conlcusion: more merts,, Why?
because methanol is better than gassoline in some aspects? Yes. which one says so?  D

E - since methanol is water soluble, methanol spills are more damaging to the environment than gasoline spills
: weakens


A physician who is too thorough in conducting a medical check up is likely to subject the patient to the discomfort of unnecessary tests.

one who is not thorough enough is likely to miss some serious problem and therefore give the patient a false sense of security.

It is difficult for physicians to judge how thorough they should be.
Therefore it is generally unwise for patients to have medical check ups when they do not feel ill.
 Because? B
 
C - some patients refuse to accept a physician's assurance that the patient is healthy
=This is the supporting reason why you do not need med chkup if you do not feel ill?  NO NO. It could be an exceptional case for you to see a dc even if you do not feel ill.

D - the more complete the series of tests performed in a medical check up the more likely it is that a rare disease if present will be discovered
=negate one of the two arguments on necessity of med check ups.

E - physicians eliminate the need to order certain tests by carefully questioning patients and rejecting some possibilities on that basis
=support necessity of medical check ups
 

[Mitchell]

Combustion of gasoline ---benzene, a known carcinogen.
Environmentalists -- methanol-- not benzene when burned:--Proposal
methanol---formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

Therefore the environmentalist's proposal holds little merit.

Change the conlcusion: more merts,, Why?
because methanol is better than gassoline in some aspects? Yes. which one says so?  D

E - since methanol is water soluble, methanol spills are more damaging to the environment than gasoline spills
: weakens


A physician who is too thorough in conducting a medical check up is likely to subject the patient to the discomfort of unnecessary tests.

one who is not thorough enough is likely to miss some serious problem and therefore give the patient a false sense of security.

It is difficult for physicians to judge how thorough they should be.
Therefore it is generally unwise for patients to have medical check ups when they do not feel ill.
 Because? B
 
C - some patients refuse to accept a physician's assurance that the patient is healthy
=This is the supporting reason why you do not need med chkup if you do not feel ill?  NO NO. It could be an exceptional case for you to see a dc even if you do not feel ill.

D - the more complete the series of tests performed in a medical check up the more likely it is that a rare disease if present will be discovered
=negate one of the two arguments on necessity of med check ups.

E - physicians eliminate the need to order certain tests by carefully questioning patients and rejecting some possibilities on that basis
=support necessity of medical check ups
 

I read all of this, but all I saw was Ç ãëþóóá åßíáé êáëÞ äçìïôéêÞ ìå ëßãåò "ôñáâçãìÝíåò" ëÝîåéò ð.÷. "áíôéðïëßôåøç", "ðñÜìáôá", "áêáôÜðáöôç" êëð. Ç íÝá áõôÞ Ýêäïóç, áö' åíüò Þôáí åðåôåéáêÞ ãéá ôá 50 ÷ñüíéá áðü ôïí ÈÜíáôï ôïõ Êáñë Ìáñî êáé áö' åôÝñïõ, ÷ñåéáæüôáíå ãéáôß ïé ðñïçãïýìåíåò åß÷áí åîáíëçèåß áðü êáéñü. Ï ÊïñäÜôïò ëÝåé üôé ç äéêéÜ ôïõ ôïõ 1927 åß÷å åîáíôëçèåß óå ëßãïõò ìÞíåò. Ï ìåôÜöñáóôÞò Ì.Ð. (ÌéëôéÜäçò ÐïñöõñïãÝíçò) ôçò Ýêäïóçò ôïõ 1948 áíáöÝñåé üôé Þôáí ç êáëýôåñç áðü ôéò ôÝóóåñéò ìÝ÷ñé ôüôå ìåôáöñÜóåéò (×áôæüðïõëïõ, áíþíõìåò 1919 êáé 1921 êáé ÊïñäÜôïõ), áí êáé óå ìåñéêÜ óçìåßá, ëÝåé, äåí åßíáé êáëÞ. Ï ÁëÝêïò Ðáðáêþóôáò óôéò Ýêäüóåéò ôïõ (ðïëõôåëÞò ôïõ 1963, êáé ëáúêÞ ôïõ 1965) áíáöÝñåé áðëþò ôçí ìåôÜöñáóç.

[smiley111]

Hi River - can you explain to me why C is not correct for the med check up problem...thank you - I didnt fully understand

[dudester]

A physician who is too thorough in conducting a medical check up is likely to subject the patient to the discomfort of unnecessary tests. One who is not thorough enough is likely to miss some serious problem and therefore give the patient a false sense of security. It is difficult for physicians to judge how thorough they should be.
Therefore it is generally unwise for patients to have medical check ups when they do not feel ill.

 
which one of the following would provide the most support  for the conclusion?
 
B - sometimes unneccessary tests cause healthy people to become ill
C - some patients refuse to accept a physician's assurance that the patient is healthy
D - the more complete the series of tests performed in a medical check up the more likely it is that a rare disease if present will be discovered
E - physicians eliminate the need to order certain tests by carefully questioning patients and rejecting some possibilities on that basis
 
B is correct and I am clueless as to why it is and as to why the rest are wrong

You're being asked to find which statement most supports the conclusion, which basically says don't go for a check up when you feel well. You're also given the rationale behind the conclusion: It is difficult for doctors to judge how thorough they should be, so they can be too thorough and cause discomfort or not thorough enough and miss a serious problem. (You could make some inferences here, though I don't think they're necessary to answer the question: If I go to the doctor when I'm feeling well, e.g. no symptoms, he'll go to town on me with a battery of tests to see if he can find something wrong -first objection- or not perform any tests at all, tell me I'm being paranoid and miss the fact that I have cancer -second objection-.)

So, another way of looking at this particular problem is: Which of the following statements offer the strongest additional reason for not going to the doctor when feeling well or which statement fills a logical gap between the the supporting premises and the conclusion? (It helps if you have some idea what you're critically reading the passage for)

Answer C is not correct for several reasons. The conclusion addresses people who do not feel ill while option C just talks about "some" patients making no mention of whether they feel ill. Also, what do "some" patients refusal to accept a physician's assurance that they are healthy have to do with it being "generally" unwise for patients to have medical check ups when they do not feel ill? Absolutely nothing. I'm sure "some" patients don't accept the fact that they are ill either. Finally, be suspicious of answers that supposedly support general conclusions based on "some" people's experience, data, etc. At least when you have better options to choose from.

Answer B touches on one of the questions we went into the passage with and on our inference, doesn't it? Doctors' unnecessary tests causing discomfort is not necessarily that bad...unless those tests can cause me to become ill, which defeats the purpose of going to the doctor when I was feeling well!

[River]

Hi River - can you explain to me why C is not correct for the med check up problem...thank you - I didnt fully understand

C - YOU refuse to accept a physician's assurance that YOU are healthy:
then, you could be unhealthy, so you need to go to another doc.  But in fact, if you are healthy, it is unwise to see a doc when healthy; on the other hand, you think you do not beleive the physician's assu, then you will keep going to see docs or several docs.  Then is it strenthening "it is unwise to-------"?