Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity [#permalink]
30 Jun 2009, 23:49
This post received KUDOS
56% (02:18) correct
43% (01:26) wrong based on 37 sessions
2. A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity tours with playing tours led to problems, so she stopped combining the two. She no longer allows bookstore appearances and playing in competition to occur in the same city within the same trip. This week she is traveling to London to play in a major competition, so during her stay in London she will not be making any publicity appearances at any bookstore in London.
Which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the passage? (A) Wherever there is an Acme Bugkiller, many wasps are killed. The Z family garden has an Acme Bugkiller, so any wasps remaining in the garden will soon be killed. (B) The only times that the hospital’s emergency room staff attends to relatively less serious emergencies are times when there is no critical emergency to attend to. On Monday night the emergency room staff attended to a series of fairly minor emergencies, so there must not have been any critical emergencies to take care of at the time. (C) Tomato plants require hot summers to thrive. Farms in the cool summers of country Y probably do not have thriving tomato plants. (D) Higher grades lead to better job opportunities, and studying leads to higher grades. Therefore, studying will lead to better job opportunities. (E) Butter knives are not sharp. Q was not murdered with a sharp blade, so suspect X’s butter knife may have been the murder weapon.
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity [#permalink]
15 Oct 2012, 06:30
Well I think that there is a debate between A and B. It took me a little more than 5 minutes to find the correct reasoning. Why A is incorrect? Because of invalid reasoning. Whenever x, many y. Then how is it possible that x happens and all Y perish. SIMILARLY E also has invalid reasoning. Why B is correct? My take from stimulus. When X and Y combines, z happens. So F decided not to merge X and Y. therefore when she does x, it gradually means that she is not doing Y. My take from option B: Z does p only when there is no Q. On Monday night, z did p so there was no q.