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:
Re: Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental [#permalink]
02 Mar 2013, 11:14
Although (E) looks fine to me ,I like option (B).And I marked (B) as well.
Second is evidence,falsity of which disproves the first .
If an example is quoted against a premise , then yes example disproves the premise.
Why this can't be correct?
Plz Advice !!
Phrase 1 states -- Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental protection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability
Phrase 2 states -- XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive.
(B) The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase
As per (B) first is a premise supporting the conclusion; the firs part of choice (B) is correct. Now, what happens when you falsify phrase 2; it would simply mean that "corporation XYZ has for the last 10 years not refused to install....." this information for just one company, XYZ whereas phrase 1 states that "few businesses". Falsifying phrase 2 would make XYZ among the few companies that will voluntarily implement environmental protection measures, but this will not disprove phrase 1.... So, falsifying phrase 2 does not disprove the first phrase.
Re: Bold Face princenton review [#permalink]
04 May 2013, 06:50
The answer is E.
Don't you guys think that the argument should start with "Only a few", rather than "few", because i feel that the latter one is giving a positive impresssion that there are some companies which can ignore profitability for general good.
Totally agree with you , that "Only few" makes sense as opposed to "Few" .
Also ,It would have made much better sense if it read -"Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental protection measures that benefit the public EVEN WHEN those measures reduce profitability" . But the way the current argument is worded , it kinda sounds like - "Few businesses will implement EP measures ONLY IF those measures reduce profitably" , which makes no sense .It took me a while to comprehend this. But I am pretty sure , GMAC would not commit such an error . Or , I am not sure if I am missing something .
Re: Bold Face princenton review
04 May 2013, 06:50