OA 1
BA) Tony holds that the chances of winning are unaffected by the number of times a person plays.---->Tony is NOT talking about the chances. he is talking about much like "Ghar baitho jeeto" jackpot of KBC (kaun banegaa crorepati)
(B) Baggs holds that the chances of Tony's winning are affected by the number of other people playing.----->correct !!
(C) Tony holds that the chances of anyone's winning are unaffected by the size of the jackpot.----->tony is NOT talking about chances of winning
(D) Baggs holds that the chances of Tony's winning in a given week are unaffected by whether anyone has won the week before ---->Baggs is talking about chances of winning when less people are playing
(E) Tony holds that the chances of there being a winner go up if no one has won the lottery for quite a a while. ---->tony is not talking about chances
it is a flaw because the chances of winning a lotto is not dependent on the number of people playing the lotto (as described in the premise). the probability is dependent on number of numbers that are there in the lot . ALSO read the following premise: all the players who have picked those numbers share the jackpot---->implies that there can be multiple winner .you might get a small share of (say $5) BUT you still be a winner !!
The correct response is (D). One way to weaken an argument is to provide an alternate reason for the conclusion. If there's another reason those who party 3+ times a week also drink more alcohol per visit, then people who want to drink less alcohol might not necessarily need to limit their club-going. (D) weakens the conclusion by suggesting that the 3+ a week partiers visit upscale clubs which have minimums.
If it's the drink minimums that is causing more consumption of alcohol, then it's possible recovering alcoholics could choose to visit non-upscale clubs without drink minimums 3+ times a week and not be at risk of over-consuming alcoholic. Since the conclusion is only concerned with Las Vegas clubs, (B) is irrelevant. (A) helps explain the conclusion, but does not weaken it, while (C) strengthens the conclusion.
Conclusion: poor content => deter potential customers from choosing Sellalot even though there is high website traffic now.
A - Out of scope
B - If great traffic is from new visitors, ditort the conclusion. If great traffic is from existing customers, strengthen the conclusion
CORRECT
C - Yes or No does not impact on conclusion
D - Same C
E - Out of scope
Ans B
The quality of heliotropism, a plant's ability to change its bearing to face the direction of the sun, is common in sunflowers. Moss displays the tendency to grow only on the side of trees opposite the most sunny direction. Therefore, moss exhibits the opposite phenomenon of heliotropism, which may be called contra-heliotropism. The argument is flawed primarily because the author A. does not take into consideration the fact that the direction of the sun changes during the day and between the southern and northern hemispheres (This applies to both plants and is universal. Does not explain) B. includes sunflowers and moss in the same group while ignoring obvious differences between them ability of sunflowers and growing tendency of moss are mentioned together. Difference between them does not matter. C. creates a new word in Latin which does not really exist Out of scope D. fails to distinguish between a plant's special ability and a plant's special growth conditions (ability of sunflowers and growing tendency of moss are mentioned together and growing tendency indicates growth conditions.) E. compares two types of plants which rarely grow in similar conditions (We have no such info mentioned above.) |
Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make its inverse true. A flawed study neither proves nor disproves a claim.
We do not have enough information to indicate that the irradiated food is unsafe for human consumption.
The correct answer is [A].
No comments:
Post a Comment