How were you able to conclude that having a joint safety committe in US medium and large companies would help workplace safety. The question stem merely states that medium and large companies in Europe has proven effective. It never mentions what would happen if these policies applied to US medium and large companies?
Thank you!
Prep 19. Section 2. Question 24 Forum
-
eternallearner
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:11 pm
Re: Prep 19. Section 2. Question 24
Another question from Prep21. Section2. Question 19.
I was able to get the correct answer (C) from process of elimination, however, I interpret the question stem to mean the following (which contradicts the answer choice)
Methane possesses the trait to vaporize the the fastest/more readily. ("there is not frozen....that vaporizes more readily than methane.") Can you explain why this is wrong?
Thank you!
I was able to get the correct answer (C) from process of elimination, however, I interpret the question stem to mean the following (which contradicts the answer choice)
Methane possesses the trait to vaporize the the fastest/more readily. ("there is not frozen....that vaporizes more readily than methane.") Can you explain why this is wrong?
Thank you!
-
Atlas LSAT Brian
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:12 pm
Re: Prep 19. Section 2. Question 24
First, PT 19, S2, Q24. The United States ranks far behind countries...
Let's note the facts:
1. US is behind countries like Sweden & Canada in safety.
2. Joint committees in ALL THREE countries have been successful in reducing injuries.
3. In the US, these committees are in only a few companies.
4. In Sweden & Canada, they exist in all medium/large companies.
In can be helpful on these questions to make the obvious conclusion if there seems to be one. In this case, it is reasonable to conclude that adding more committees in the US would reduce injuries, since the few committees that exist have been successful.
(A) Yep.
(B) "more effective?" No evidence for this. There are more of them, yes. But they aren't necessarily more effective.
(C) "prior to the laws?" No.
(D) "prior to the laws?" No,
(E) "would surpass?" No. This is an extreme generalization. Not supported by the text.
Now, PT 21, S2, Q19.
Here's my take on the argument.
N, M, and Cm exist on Pluto.
They vaporize.
Amt of gas is proportional to how readily it vaporizes.
Therefore, the components of Pluto's atmosphere are N, Cm, and M, with N being most abundant.
Compare this argument to the following hypothetical.
Observation has revealed that squirrels, deer, and elephants exist on Earth.
The population of a mammal is proportional to its size.
Therefore, the mammals on Earth are Squirrels, Deer, and Elephants, Elephants being the most abundant.
What's missing here? Just because we've seen squirrels, deer, and elephants, does that mean there are no other mammals? Isn't it possible that there's a mammal somewhere between deer and elephants in size and population?
This is what (C) does.
Notice what happens if you negate (C): "There are MANY frozen substances on Pluto that vaporize more readily than M and less than Cm." Now the conclusion is stupid. This is how you know you've found the correct assumption!
Does that help?
Let's note the facts:
1. US is behind countries like Sweden & Canada in safety.
2. Joint committees in ALL THREE countries have been successful in reducing injuries.
3. In the US, these committees are in only a few companies.
4. In Sweden & Canada, they exist in all medium/large companies.
In can be helpful on these questions to make the obvious conclusion if there seems to be one. In this case, it is reasonable to conclude that adding more committees in the US would reduce injuries, since the few committees that exist have been successful.
(A) Yep.
(B) "more effective?" No evidence for this. There are more of them, yes. But they aren't necessarily more effective.
(C) "prior to the laws?" No.
(D) "prior to the laws?" No,
(E) "would surpass?" No. This is an extreme generalization. Not supported by the text.
Now, PT 21, S2, Q19.
Here's my take on the argument.
N, M, and Cm exist on Pluto.
They vaporize.
Amt of gas is proportional to how readily it vaporizes.
Therefore, the components of Pluto's atmosphere are N, Cm, and M, with N being most abundant.
Compare this argument to the following hypothetical.
Observation has revealed that squirrels, deer, and elephants exist on Earth.
The population of a mammal is proportional to its size.
Therefore, the mammals on Earth are Squirrels, Deer, and Elephants, Elephants being the most abundant.
What's missing here? Just because we've seen squirrels, deer, and elephants, does that mean there are no other mammals? Isn't it possible that there's a mammal somewhere between deer and elephants in size and population?
This is what (C) does.
Notice what happens if you negate (C): "There are MANY frozen substances on Pluto that vaporize more readily than M and less than Cm." Now the conclusion is stupid. This is how you know you've found the correct assumption!
Does that help?
