Анализ ответов | Тесты, Справочник

Продолжение. Начало читайте здесь.

Обратите внимание на таблицу, приведенную ниже.

1. The correct answer is (C). Assumption (easier)

The argument fails to explicitly provide that employees who are at least ten years out of college change employers less frequently on average than other employees. This premise is essential to the argument's conclusion, and choice (C) supplies this additional premise.

Choice (A) is relevant to the argument, since the argument's conclusion appears to recommend college graduates of at least ten years over all other job applicants (including college graduates as well as candidates without college degrees). However, choice (A) compares the job attrition rate among applicants without college degrees to the rate among all college graduates. The argument's conclusion recommends one group of college graduates over another. Since choice (A) does not distinguish between these two groups, it fails to provide a necessary assumption.

Choice (B) is irrelevant to the argument, which seeks only to make a recommendation for reducing employee turnover and not for minimizing the frequency of job changes within a company.

Choice (D) is irrelevant as it stands. The argument provides no information about whether employees who graduated college at least ten years ago are more or less likely than other employees to leave their jobs at the request or demand of theii employers, as opposed to leaving by their own initiative.

1	C	8.	C
2.	C	9.	D
3.	B	10.	E
4.	A	11.	B
5.	B	12.	E
6.	D	13.	D
7.	E	14.	A

Choice (E) is irrelevant to the argument, which seeks only to recommend one group of college graduates over other job applicants. Admittedly, whether recent college graduates are more or less likely than other college graduates to resign their jobs in order to pursue advanced degrees would be significant in determining how to minimize employee turnover. However, the survey involved only the former group, not the latter group. Thus, choice (E) would be relevant to the argument only under the additional assumption provided by choice (C).

2. The correct answer is (C). Supporting-evidence (challenging)

roads

The argument relies on the unstated assumption that the funds used to maintain the roads would be available for the education program should the ordinance be repealed. Choice (C) provides evidence that this assumption is a reasonable one; if the roads are of no other practical use, then there would be no need to continue to spend county funds to maintain them.

Choice (A) actually tends to weaken the argument. Choice (A) provides some evidence that trash is being hauled away from where most of the people are evidence that the ordinance makes sense and should not be repealed.

Choice (B) is irrelevant to the argument, which is concerned only with preventing Smith's disease, and not with its treatment.

Choice (D) does admittedly lend some measure of support to the argument. Common sense tells us that the education program would be effective only if the group or individual whom it is designed to benefit actually benefit from it. However, we are not informed whether the entire population is, in fact, susceptible to Smith's Disease. Without this additional information, it is impossible to assess the degree to which choice (D) strengthens the argument.

Choice (E) actually weakens the argument. If no other practical means of preventing Smith's Disease are available, this fact would provide strong support for the argument that the dumping ordinance should remain in effect.

3. The correct answer is (B). Weakening-evidence (challenging)

The argument assumes that the proposed course of action - reducing demand for aoli tree bark - is necessary to prevent total depletion of aoli tree bark within fifty years. However, the argument ignores the possibility of increasing supply as an alternative means of achieving this goal. Choice (B) provides this alternative.

Choice (A) actually strengthens the argument. The fact that a certain activity resulting in the use of aoli oil is becoming obsolete suggests a decline in demand for the oil in the future and thus, less urgency in taking steps to save aoli trees from extinction.

Choice (C) tends to strengthen the argument by providing evidence of an additional use for aoli bark. The more potential uses, the more likely that the rate of use will increase and hence that the bark will be depleted within fifty years.

Choice (D) tends to strengthen the argument for the same reason as choice (C).

Choice (E) is irrelevant to the argument, which turns on the rate of use of aoli oil, not where the users of the oil reside.

4. The correct answer is (A). Assumption (moderate)

Gwen's argument relies on the assumption that expensive restaurants are not as popular among the college students as inexpensive restaurants. Jose provides one reason why expensive restaurants are not necessarily less popular among the college students, suggesting that the disagreement is about whether expensive restaurants are in fact less popular among the college students than inexpensive restaurants.

Choice (B) is irrelevant to the argument, in which Jose and Gwen disagree about whether the number of expensive restaurants should be reduced, not whether the number of restaurants providing delivery service should be reduced.

Choice (C) is irrelevant to the argument in which Jose and Gwen disagree about whether the number of expensive restaurants should be reduced, not whether inexpensive restaurants should provide delivery service.

Choice (D) is not a point of disagreement between Jose and Gwen. On the contrary, the premise of Gwen's argument (first sentence) strongly suggests that Jose and Gwen agree on this point.

Choice (E) misses the key point of disagreement: whether inexpensive restaurants are relatively popular compared to expensive restaurants among Collegetown students.

5. The correct answer is (B). Probable-inference (moderate)

If an hourly-wage employee works less than five days per week, the employee would need to work more than 8 hours per day on average to qualify for overtime pay in state Y. On the other hand, the same employee would need to work more than 8 hours per day only on one day to qualify for overtime pay in state X. Thus, employees working less than five days per week would prefer to work in state X. Given that most employees prefer to work in state Y, it is reasonable to conclude that most employees work at least five days per week.

Choices (A) and (C) are not inferable. Each of these two choices assumes that employers in one state provide overtime work while employers in the other state do not. However, the passage provides no information that might help affirm this assumption.

Choice (D) confuses the use of the percentage cited in the argument.

Choice (E) is not inferable. In fact, the reverse of choice (E) is readily inferable from the facts; that is, most employees probably work more than 40 hours per week if they prefer to work in state Y over state X.

6. The correct answer is (D). Supporting-evidence (easier)

One of the judging criteria is flavor. If the judges prefer the flavor of cherry pies over other flavors, this fact would increase the likelihood that a cherry pie will win the contest. Admittedly, flavor is only one judging criterion. Nevertheless, choice (D) is the best of the five answer choices.

Choice (A) does not firmly support any conclusion. On the one hand, the more cherry pies entered in the contest, the more statistically likely the winner will be a cherry pie. On the other hand, one of the judging criterion is distinctness, and the more cherry pies entered, the less distinctive any cherry pie is likely to be.

Choice (B) tends to support the opposite conclusion. If a fresh cherry pie is difficult to bake to proper doneness, then a fresh cherry pie is less likely to win the contest. Moreover, since freshness is also a judging criterion, a canned cherry pie is less likely to win, and therefore any cherry pie is less likely to win. Also, whether a pie is difficult to bake properly is not one of the judging criteria; in this respect, then, choice (C) is irrelevant.

Choice (C) does not support any conclusion about the likelihood that a cherry pie will win. On the contrary, choice (D) provides evidence that none of the pies entered in the contest hold an advantage over any other with respect to one particular judging criterion.

Choice (E) does not strongly support the conclusion. While a cherry pie that is fresh and is baked to the cherries' proper doneness is more likely to win as a result, a pie whose crust is overbaked (not baked to proper doneness) is less likely to win as a result.

7. The correct answer is (E). Main-point (easier)

The best expression of the argument's conclusion must embrace every relevant component of the passage, including the first sentence. Accordingly, the argument boils down to the following:

Premise:Public policy requires the most productive use of land.
Premise:Farm subsidies discourage farm productivity.
Intermediate conclusion:Farms are less productive with subsidies than without them. Final conclusion (implied): Farm subsidies violate public policy.

Choice (E) expresses the final conclusion. Choice (A) expresses only the argument's intermediate conclusion and therefore is not the best answer.

Choice (B) runs contrary to the passage, which suggests that the current farm subsidy system should be changed (or even abolished) in order to conform to public policy, not the other way around. Choice (C) is supported by the passage but is off focus in terms of the argument's final conclusion.

Choice (D) is supported by the passage but is not the argument's final conclusion.

8. The correct answer is (C). Necessary-inference (moderate).

According to the argument, any person eligible for the internship program is likely to gain admission to the local law school if he or she applies, and some people eligible for the program hold Bachelor degrees. It follows logically that some people with a Bachelor's degree are likely to gain admission to law school if they apply. To follow these logical steps, it helps to express the premises and conclusion symbolically, as follows (E = eligible for the program), A = likely to gain admission to law school, B = Bachelor's degree):

Premise:All E are A.
Premise:Some E are B.
Conclusion:Some B are A.

None of the other choices provides a valid conclusion.

9. The correct answer is (D). Probable-inference (challenging).

Based on the last sentence of the passage, we can conclude that juvenile criminals associate primarily with other juvenile criminals, and that adult criminals constitute the same group of people who were juvenile criminals. For choice (D) to not be readily inferable would require that most adult criminals associate primarily with law abiding peers as teenagers. But this contradicts what we know about adult criminals, based on the passage information. Thus, choice (D) is strongly inferable.

Choice (A) is not readily inferable. In fact, choice (A) is explicitly contradicted by one of the argument's stated premises (the first sentence).

Choice (B) is not readily inferable. Before we can determine whether the prediction to which choice (B) refers is "impossible," we would need to compare the significance of behavioral predisposition to the influence of a person's teenage peers. But the passage does not provide sufficient information for this comparison. (The passage indicates merely that the latter factor is "significant.")

Choice (C) is not readily inferable. The passage information leaves open the possibility that many, or perhaps even most, law-abiding adults did develop a predisposition for criminal behavior, but were influenced by their teenage peers to act contrary to that predisposition. Admittedly, this possibility runs contrary to the passage information as a whole. Nevertheless, unlike choice (D), choice (C) does not find explicit support in the passage; thus choice (D) is a better answer choice than choice (C).

Choice (E) is not readily inferable. The passage information leaves open the possibility that most preteen children who are not predisposed to criminal behavior are later influenced by their teenage peers to act contrary to that predisposition and eventually become adult criminals.

10. The correct answer is (E). Weakening-evidence (easier).

The argument relies on the unstated assumption that no factor other than Gary's driving speed might be responsible for the recent decrease in his fuel mileage; in other words, no other circumstances that might affect fuel mileage have changed recently. One effective way to weaken the argument would be to refute this assumption. Choice (E) accomplishes this by providing a convincing alternative explanation for the decrease.

Choice (A) is irrelevant to the argument; whether or not Gary knows how fast he is driving bears no relation to his car's actual fuel mileage, which is based on the number of miles driven and the amount of fuel consumed.

Choice (B) is irrelevant as it stands. Admittedly, the number of miles Gary travels might affect Gary's fuel mileage under some circumstances - for example, if additional wear and tear on the engine from additional or more frequent driving causes lower fuel mileage. Yet without clear evidence to this effect, it is impossible to assess the extent to which choice (B) would weaken the argument.

Choice (C) actually strengthens the argument, by providing additional evidence that Gary's driving speed is indeed the cause of the decrease in his fuel mileage.

Choice (D) is irrelevant for the same reason as choice (A): whether or not Gary knows how fast he is driving bears no relation to his car's actual fuel mileage.

11. The correct answer is (B). Parallel-argument (moderate).

The original argument boils down to the following: Premise: If a teacher refuses to attend the conference, then the teacher will not attend the buffet.

Premise: Sanjay did not attend the buffet. Conclusion: Sanjay refused to attend the conference.

To reveal the argument's structure (and its flawed reasoning), express the argument using symbols: Premise: If A, then B. Premise: X is B. Conclusion: X is A.
This reasoning is fallacious, and choice (B) demonstrates the same basic pattern:

Premise: If a person is seated in the front row, then the person can hear the coach. (If A, then B.)
Premise: Ursula can hear the coach. (X is B.) Conclusion: Ursula is seated in the front row. (X is A.)

12. The correct answer is (E). Supporting-evidence (challenging).

The argument asserts, essentially, that it was the marketing campaign, and not some other factor, that was responsible for the high number of sales of the new version of ActiveWeb compared to competing products. One way to support the argument is to rule out one or more other factors that might have been responsible instead for this phenomenon. By implication, choice (E) provides just this sort of evidence. While favorable third-party reviews of ActiveWeb would serve to weaken the claim that the marketing campaign was the cause of the sales results, unfavorable reviews would accomplish just the opposite.

Choice (A) is irrelevant to the argument, which seeks to explain the success of the new version of ActiveWeb vis-a-vis competing products; the mere fact that the total market size has increased accomplishes nothing toward explaining this comparative success.

Choice (B) has little effect on the argument, at least without additional information. On the one hand, if the decrease in the number of competitors was the direct result of MicroTeam's marketing efforts, then choice (B) would serve to strengthen the argument. On the one hand, by providing an alternative explanation for the sales comparison indicated in the argument's first sentence, choice (B) tends to weaken the argument.

Choice (C) weakens the argument, by providing an alternative explanation for the sales comparison indicated in the argument's first sentence. Specifically, choice (C) provides evidence that it is the product itself and not the marketing campaign that is responsible for the product's comparative success in the marketplace.

Choice (D) is not directly relevant to the argument. Admittedly, the fact that more copies of the new version of ActiveWeb have been sold than of any previous version might be explained by a successful marketing campaign. However, this fact could just as easily be explained by other factors.

13. The correct answer is (D). Weakening-evidence (moderate).

Choice (D) actually strengthens the argument, insofar as by prolonging life the new drugs would make it possible for the elderly to develop even more new ailments. (The argument does not equate health with prolonged life.)

Choice (A) weakens the argument, by providing evidence that elderly people might be more likely to develop new ailments - and thus suffer from poor health - if the government limits the price of the new drugs.

Choice (B) serves to weaken the argument. If a prescribed dosage of a new drug treats or prevents multiple ailments just as effectively as it treats one new ailment, then the total amount elderly people pay for all drugs will be less than it would be otherwise - and accordingly elderly people can better afford the new drugs.

Choice (C) weakens the argument by providing an alternative to the expensive new drugs that prevent the new ailments. (Just as preventing the new ailments would promote heath, so would treating them.)

Choice (E) weakens the argument. Given choice (E), health expenses incurred by elderly people are not as great as they would be otherwise, and so the new drugs are more affordable than they would be otherwise. Accordingly, government limits on prices are less likely to be necessary than they would be otherwise.

14. The correct answer is (A). Assumption (moderate).

Choice (A) is irrelevant to the argument without certain additional assumptions. Even if the same writers who write for television also write for movies, the passage provides no information about whether these writers would also strike against movie studios. Even if they would, we are not informed how the impending strike might affect the quality of new movie screenplays, if at all, and how this outcome might in turn affect movie-theater attendance and profits, if at all.

Choice (B) is a necessary assumption. Unless we can assume that an increase in movie theater attendance will result in increased profits for the theaters and, in turn, for the movie studios, then a writers' strike will not necessarily have any impact on the movie studios. (Without this assumption, it is possible, for example, that the price of tickets might decrease so that an increase in movie attendance would not result in an increase in profits.)

Choice (C) is a necessary assumption. Unless the quality of television programming declines as a result of a writers' strike, it is impossible to conclude with any certainty whether movie theater attendance, and therefore movie studio profits, will increase.

Choice (D) is a necessary assumption that goes hand-in-hand with answer choice (B). Unless we can assume that movie studios will also profit from the profits of movie theaters, then a writers' strike will not necessarily have any impact on the movie studios.

Choice (E) is a necessary assumption. Unless people attend movie theaters more often as a result of watching less television, it is impossible to concdude with any certainty that movie theater profits, and therefore movie studio profits, will increase.

Продолжение следует...