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:
Kale has more nutritional value than spinach. But since [#permalink]
20 Dec 2004, 06:37
100% (02:22) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 4 sessions
46. Kale has more nutritional value than spinach. But since collard greens have more nutritional value than lettuce, if follows that kale has more nutritional value than lettuce.
Any of the following, if introduced into the argument as an additional premise, makes the argument above logically correct EXCEPT:
A. Collard greens have more nutritional value than kale
B. Spinach has more nutritional value than lettuce
C. Spinach has more nutritional value than collard greens
D. Spinach and collard greens have the same nutritional value
E. Kale and collard greens have the same nutritional value
OA is (A)
I don't understand this problem because there seems no correct answer. This is my approach:
Kale = K
Spinach = S
Collard greens = G
Lettuce = L
K > S
G > L
According to the answer choices:
(A) G>K : not illogical since
G > K > S > L
(B) S > L: not illogical since
(C) S>G: not illogical since
(D) S=G: not illogical since
(E) K=G: not illogical since
This is question 46 in OG. Can someone please verify if the text has no typo?
qhoc, there is no typo in the text and the OA is A.
Question says that all the choices make it logically correct EXCEPT one.
In exception question remember that the right answer choice does not need to have the exact opposite effect, in this case incorrect. If it is ambiguous then that is your answer choice. Same logic applies if the question had said all choices "Strengthen" except one. Here the exception need not necessarily weaken the conclusion, it can either weaken or add no value to conclusion.
That said, for this question the stem says
K>S; G>L => K>L
For this to be absolutely true, the different options could be
1) S>G => K>S>G>L
2) S=G => K>S,G>L
3) S>L => K>S>L
4) K=G => K,G>L
Lets look at (A). It says G>K; we know from the stem G>L
From this we cannot conclude that K>L as we do not know the relation between K & L.
G>K could imply G>K>L or G>L>K or G>(K=L)
So, choice A adds no value to the conlusion, it does not strenthen the conclusion.
qhoc, A does not make the argument logically correct. So, it cannot be eliminated. As I mentioned before you cannot tell if K>L or not from A. So it does not satisfy the question. Think of this as a DS question in quant, you do not pick a statement if it has more that one value. This is very similar, A does not give you the answer and is hence Insufficient.