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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Check out this awesome article about Anderson on Poets Quants, http://poetsandquants.com/2015/01/02/uclas-anderson-school-morphs-into-a-friendly-tech-hub/ . Anderson is a great place! Sorry for the lack of updates recently. I...