|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 714
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in [#permalink]
 29 Jun 2005, 18:43
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in one's house at all. One call also be in one's house but not at home, if one owns the house but rents it out to others, for example. So one's being at home is not required for one's being in one's own house.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the argument's conclusion and its claim that one can be at home without being in one's house?
A) The claim is required to establish the conclusion
B) The claim represents the point the conclusion is intended to refute.
C) The claim is compatible with the truth or falsity of the conclusion
D) The claim points out an ambiguity in the phrase "at home"
E) The claim is inadvertently contradicts the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Is it D
Claim: House + Backyard = Home
Conclusion: Own house + (Backyard) = Home
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 93
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
agree with D. that's what they are trying to do i.e. to say that "at home" is a vague statement
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 714
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Bumping up this thread for more participation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 495
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
i'll go with E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 10
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I 'll go with C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 495
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
anyone else .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 6
Location: Hong Kong
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
D for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 10
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
What's the OA? Neone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 374
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
A = One being at home
B = One being inside one's house
Claim states that A can happen with or without B
Conclusion states that A is not required for B to be true.
To me the claim is just a rewording of the conclusion. Because if the conclusion is true, then the claim is true. If the conclusion is false, then B => A negating the claim.
C would be my choice.
We can also eliminate the other choices:
A is false because the claim is not necessary at all to make the conclusion, it is just a rephrased conclusion.
B is clearly false
D is false because, there is no word-play here
E is also false
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 714
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
AJB77 wrote: A = One being at home
B = One being inside one's house
Claim states that A can happen with or without B
Conclusion states that A is not required for B to be true.
To me the claim is just a rewording of the conclusion. Because if the conclusion is true, then the claim is true. If the conclusion is false, then B => A negating the claim.
C would be my choice.
We can also eliminate the other choices:
A is false because the claim is not necessary at all to make the conclusion, it is just a rephrased conclusion.
B is clearly false
D is false because, there is no word-play here
E is also false
AJB, I have a couple of follow up questions:
You say that A can happen with or without B
From the passage content (1st line) we know that A can happen without B. However nothing is said about A can happen with B correct?
All we know is
A is not dependant on B
B is not dependant on A.
I just want to make sure that i havent missed anything.
If the conclusion is negated, then we get A is required for B. If this were true, then like you said it contradicts the B !=> A paradigm. But the question just asks about the claim "one can be at home without being in one's house" [A !=> B]. So how is the claim compatible with the falsity of the conclusion? The claim has no effect on the 'falsity" on the conclusion. Ergo its "compatible"? Is that what AC C is saying?
BTW the OA is C. So you've nailed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 374
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
See, to be honest, I was not 100% sure of C, but I figured with confidence that the rest were definitely wrong and chose C, even if I was a bit shaky. Once I chose C, I tried to make an argument for it.
To me "X is compatible with truth and falsity of Y" means that (If Y -> X AND IF ~Y -> ~X)
X = "One's being at home is not required for one's being in one's own house."
~X = "One's being at home is required for one's being in one's own house." which NEGATES the claim "One can be at home and not be in one's house at all"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
