PrepAdviser.com

Search found 3 matches

Return

Re: Sentence Correction - Homework

Lets consider an example. One person buys a parking ticket of rate $2/hr for 10 hrs, so he paid $20. After 5 hrs he intends to use remaining time (i.e 5 hrs of value $10) at another parking space which charges $5/hr. Value of next parking calculates to $25. Clearly $10<$25, so as per original statement it should be allowed. Hence the person can use service of amount $35 by paying only $20. This is definitely not the intention of sentence.
by alok_GMAT
Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:25 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Critical reasoning

When you see "assumption" questions, the gap in logic is very often something that you don't notice at first - the argument is designed with a very subtle flaw.

Here look at the way that the evidence leads to the conclusion:

-Expensive sports cars receive 5 times as many (25% of tickets for 5% of the traffic) speeding tickets as they should.
-Therefore people who drive those cars are more likely to speed.

There's a subtle but really significant difference between the two. The premise talks about RECEIVING TICKETS while the conclusion talks about SPEEDING. And those two are very closely related but they're not the same thing (I drove 15% over the speed limit the whole way to work today and didn't get a ticket, for example). What if those people in expensive cars don't actually speed more often, but police officers just notice the flashy cars more often when they do speed? Or the police officers are instructed to target expensive cars because it's more likely that the drivers will pay the tickets (as opposed to challenging them in court), bringing the police department more money at less cost? Either of those cases could be true, in which case the fact (expensive cars receive more tickets) is true but the conclusion is not.

Choice D then is necessary to connect those two points by saying that receiving speeding tickets is directly correlated with the amount of speeding one does. Now the premises and conclusion are using the same words: Receive more tickets --> More likely to speed, so if expensive cars receive more tickets, we can conclude that they are more likely to speed.
by VeritasPrepBrian
Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:33 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Sentence Correction - Homework

In this type of parallelism/sentence construction problem, you need to isolate what structures need to be parallel. To start, you need to use the participial structure (growing or having grown) - what follows the word “Africa” is helping us understand better how she spent most of her life on the continent. These are not separate things – she did not spend most of her life in Africa, AND grew up in Kenya, AND attended prep school in Namibia…these are just modifiers to help you understand how she has spent most of her life in Africa. Also, there is an illogical mixing of the simple past and present perfect tenses in series that follows. (C) contains a bungled series – you cannot say “having grown, attended, and having done”. It would have to be “having grown, attended, and done” or “having grown, having attended, and having done.” (D) uses the proper “ing” participial structure and is perfectly parallel: “growing…attending…and doing”. (E) has another bungled series:“growing, attending, and she did”.
by VeritasPrepBrian
Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:49 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic