Wednesday 21 October 2015

CR - OCT 21

In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two documents mentioning the same person, Erich Schnitzler. One, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of Schnitzler's arrest for peddling without a license. The second, undated, is a statement by Schnitzler asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.

The facts above best support which of the following conclusions?

(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.
(C) The undated document was written before 1765.
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.

OA C

C it is 
A) If the undated document were dated 1750, then we cannot say that Schnitzler started peddling in 1719 
B) He could have been arrested only once, in 1739 
C) The most conservative answer. If the documents were simply written before 1765, it would account for the fact that Schnitzler was peddling on and off for the past 20 years. Say it was dated 1730, then Schnitzler was at least peddling on in 1739. Say it was dated 1750, then again we can say that Schnitzler was at least peddling on in 1739. 
D) As said in C, the document could have been written in 1750. We cannot say that it was written after the undated document for sure 
E) Nothing ascertains the veracity of each document. The undated document could have been an official court order or something the like 



While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state's budget has increased by an average of 6 percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the state's budget increased by an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor Verdant's term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governor's term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdant's term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdant's term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdant's term in office, the state's budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdant's term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governor's term.
(E) During the previous governor's term in office, the state introduced several so-called "austerity" budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.


OA A

The argument boils down to the numbers: the state's budget increased by less percent during
Governor V.'s tenure than that of his predecessor (6% vs. 11.5%). Thus, Gov. V. represented a
slow down in budget spending. 

Can we rely solely on the numbers? That question becomes the crux of the conclusion. 

What if there was more inflation during the previous governor's tenure? Well, then we have
an alternative explanation for the greater percentage increase in state budget during the 
previous governor's term. 

Therefore, (A) is the answer. 

 the phenomenon in (D) could have multiple interpretations. For one, that the state discontinued/charged citizens for services does not definitively prove that the state spending slowed down during Gov. V's time (remember this is the conclusion). Perhaps, the budget actually increased and the funds were spent on other projects, e.g. state highway, etc. Indeed, the money that was saved from not scrapping citizens' services could be used for new projects.

Basically (D) doesn't provide us with any info. regarding the actual budget size during Gov. V's reign - just that certain programs were eliminated.


choice E 

in order to weaken the argument we need to somehow undermine the cause - effect relationship claimed in the argument.
CAUSE: Gov. Verdant's austere budgets
EFFECT: Slowdown in spending.

Choice E is a trap answer because it does not undermine the cause-effect relationship in any way but it distracts you away from the main argument. So what if the previous governor introduced austerity measures? Did these measures actually work? And most importantly, how does this relate to the effectiveness of gov. Verdant's austerity measures? You see, choice E is completely tangential to the argument.

No comments:

Post a Comment