|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 613
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Another one
Attachments
CR15.jpg [ 46.63 KiB | Viewed 259 times ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Posts: 224
Location: Utrecht
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I think I will choose answer D.
In D it is mentioned that the inspector decided not to search some tourists, while the tourist knew themselves they were carrying contraband.
The inspector mentions that he could always know if someone is carrying contraband. Obviously not, because he will not inspect some tourists while the tourists know they carry contraband.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards,
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 929
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
I would think E. Those carrying contraband knowingly may choose to deceive and be caught. However, those carrying contraband unwittingly may show no signs and the inspector can miss such people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 21
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
i would choose D. the inspector is trying to prove that he always knows when someone is trying to cheat him... but if someone who is trying to cheat him (by wittingly carrying contraband) passes unstopped, then his accuracy in detecting intent isn't perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[0], given: 13
|
Another vote for E folks. It alone exposes the logical flaw inherent in the inspectors argument. The argument - inspector can always TELL whoever is carrying contraband and TRYING to deceive him. However how about if someone is carrying contraband unwittingly. In this case there's no deliberate attempt to deceive and hence the inspector wouldn't sense it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Posts: 601
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Fact: Guy points hand at some one and they turn up being bad guys, carrying contraband goods.
Conclusion: Guy is good in finding people who deceive.
The missing piece is, "What about people whom does not point hand at? Are they always good guys?"
If the answer is "Yes", then it makes sense to say he is good in finding cheaters.
This flaw is pointed in D.
(I am a little skeptical about the use of "could" in all four choices except C. Using "could" does not make a strong objection. It would have been better if it were a past-tense-fact)
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1031
Location: Florida
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
yep. D proposes valid criticism
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[0], given: 13
|
Argument - the inspector, based on his 10 years experience, has always been able to catch those carrying contraband and trying to deceive him. One of the central pieces of his argument relies on the assumption that those carrying contraband knowingly try to deceive him and he catches them.
E exposes a possiblity that some people may unknowingly carry contraband and hence there would be no question of them trying to deceive. This exposes a LOGICAL FLAW in the inspector's argument that he can always tell those carrying contraband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 613
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
OA is D Thanks all for nice explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
