Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 27 Oct 2016, 16:11

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Paulsville and Longtown cannot both be included in the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 598
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 212 [0], given: 0

Paulsville and Longtown cannot both be included in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 15:50
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Paulsville and Longtown cannot both be included in the candidateâ€™s itinerary of campaign stops. The candidate will make a stop in Paulsville unless Salisbury is made part of the itinerary. Unfortunately, a stop in Salisbury is out of the question. Clearly, then, a stop in Longtown can be ruled out.
The reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following arguments?
(A) The chef never has both fresh radishes and fresh green peppers available for the chiefâ€™s salad at the same time. If she uses fresh radishes, she also uses spinach. But currently there is no spinach to be had. It can be inferred, then, that she will not be using fresh green peppers.
(B) Tom will definitely support Parker if Mendoza does not apply; and Tom will not support both Parker and Chung. Since, as it turns out, Mendoza will not apply, it follows that Chung will not get Tomâ€™s support.
(C) The program committee never selects two plays by Shaw for a single season. But when they select a play by Coward, they do not select any play by Shaw at all. For this season, the committee has just selected a play by Shaw, so they will not select any play by Coward.
(D) In agricultural pest control, either pesticides or the introduction of natural enemies of the pest, but not both, will work. Of course, neither will be needed if pest-resistant crops are planted. So if pesticides are in fact needed, it must be that there are no natural enemies of the pest.
(E) The city cannot afford to build both a new stadium and the new road that would be needed to get there. But neither of the two projects is worth doing without the other. Since the city will not undertake any but worthwhile projects, the new stadium will not be constructed at this time.
_________________

Regards, S

Manager
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 95
Location: Irvine, CA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 17:25
saurya_s wrote:
Paulsville and Longtown cannot both be included in the candidateâ€™s itinerary of campaign stops. The candidate will make a stop in Paulsville unless Salisbury is made part of the itinerary. Unfortunately, a stop in Salisbury is out of the question. Clearly, then, a stop in Longtown can be ruled out.
The reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following arguments?
(A) The chef never has both fresh radishes and fresh green peppers available for the chiefâ€™s salad at the same time. If she uses fresh radishes, she also uses spinach. But currently there is no spinach to be had. It can be inferred, then, that she will not be using fresh green peppers.
(B) Tom will definitely support Parker if Mendoza does not apply; and Tom will not support both Parker and Chung. Since, as it turns out, Mendoza will not apply, it follows that Chung will not get Tomâ€™s support.
(C) The program committee never selects two plays by Shaw for a single season. But when they select a play by Coward, they do not select any play by Shaw at all. For this season, the committee has just selected a play by Shaw, so they will not select any play by Coward.
(D) In agricultural pest control, either pesticides or the introduction of natural enemies of the pest, but not both, will work. Of course, neither will be needed if pest-resistant crops are planted. So if pesticides are in fact needed, it must be that there are no natural enemies of the pest.
(E) The city cannot afford to build both a new stadium and the new road that would be needed to get there. But neither of the two projects is worth doing without the other. Since the city will not undertake any but worthwhile projects, the new stadium will not be constructed at this time.

my Chice: A

Logic: of main argument
A= Paulsville B=Longtown C=Salisbury

if A or B not both.
If A then C
No C, then No B.

A) A= Radishes B= Peppers C= Spinach

if A or B not both.
If A then C
No C, then no B

exactly the same, so I didnt anilize the following ones to save time.
_________________

discipline is what I need.

Intern
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 9
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 17:37
My Choice B

Stem :
1. NOT [PL]
2. If NOT S => P

Now NOT S is true, So P is certain event. So L cannot Occur.

B Choice :

1. NOT M => P
2. NOT [MP]

Now NOT M is true, So P is certain event. So M cannot occur.
_________________

The biggest risk in life is not taking one!!!

Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 904
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 19:45
I will pick (E).. explain if correct...

Surya, I am getting psyched with ur CR Questions... I am taking hell lot of time and my accuracy is also very less.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 338 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 20:32
(A) discusses two choices. But the condition is reversed. Here, instead of saying 'she uses fresh radishes only if she uses spinach', it says 'she uses fresh radishes, she also uses spinach'. It turns the equation from a (X) unless (Y) to a (Y) and (X). A is out.

(B) by saying Tom will not support both Parker and Chung deviates from the original argument. Here, it is a matter of Tom's decision not to support both, whereas in the original argument, it is a rule of the campaign (cannot include both towns as campaign stops). So B is out.

(C) The program committee never selects two plays by Shaw for a single season. But when they select a play by Coward, they do not select any play by Shaw at all. For this season, the committee has just selected a play by Shaw, so they will not select any play by Coward.
(C) again discusses choices made, not rules imposed. C is out.

(D) is completely out of line with the argument.

(E) The city cannot afford to build both a new stadium and the new road that would be needed to get there. But neither of the two projects is worth doing without the other. Since the city will not undertake any but worthwhile projects, the new stadium will not be constructed at this time.
(E) states two choices: new stadium + new road. But here, a rule is imposed instead of a choice (budget being the rule, and not preference for a road or stadium).
The choice ends off by stating the result (no construction based on the current condition - no budget)

(E) for me.
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 560
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 04:59
Let

SP = stop in paulsville
SS = stop in salisbury
SL = stop in longtown

then:

SP -----> SS (given - stop in paulsville means stop in salisbury)
~SS ----> ~SL (conclusion - no stop in salisbury means no stop in longtown)

My ans. is (A).

A) The chef never has both fresh radishes and fresh green peppers available for the chief’s salad at the same time. If she uses fresh radishes, she also uses spinach. But currently there is no spinach to be had. It can be inferred, then, that she will not be using fresh green peppers.

Applying the same reasoning above,

FR = use of fresh radishes
S = use of spinach
F = fresh green peppers

FR ----> S
~S ----> ~F

...which is the same reasoning as given in the stimulus
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 598
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 212 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 07:09
Vishy wrote:
My Choice B

Stem :
1. NOT [PL]
2. If NOT S => P

Now NOT S is true, So P is certain event. So L cannot Occur.

B Choice :

1. NOT M => P
2. NOT [MP]

Now NOT M is true, So P is certain event. So M cannot occur.

Vishy, can you plz explain your answer. What does symbols mean in words.
S
_________________

Regards, S

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 09:31
If P then non L, and If L then non P. P unless S. Non S.
Conclusion: non L.

Let's do our own logic reasoning to see how the author gets to the conclusion. Non S, therefore P. P, Therefore non L.

(A) The chef never has both fresh radishes and fresh green peppers available for the chiefâ€™s salad at the same time. If she uses fresh radishes, she also uses spinach. But currently there is no spinach to be had. It can be inferred, then, that she will not be using fresh green peppers.
If R then non G, if G then non R. If R, then S. Non S. Therefore non G.
Wrong logic. The bolded part is different from stem. "P unless S" means "If S then non P, if non S then P".

(B) Tom will definitely support Parker if Mendoza does not apply; and Tom will not support both Parker and Chung. Since, as it turns out, Mendoza will not apply, it follows that Chung will not get Tomâ€™s support.
If P then non C, if C then non P. If non M then P. Non M. Therefore non C.
This resambles the stem.

(C) The program committee never selects two plays by Shaw for a single season. But when they select a play by Coward, they do not select any play by Shaw at all. For this season, the committee has just selected a play by Shaw, so they will not select any play by Coward.
If S1 then non S2, if S2 then non S1. If C then non S. S, therefore non C.
Wrong logic, bolded part is different from the stem.

(D) In agricultural pest control, either pesticides or the introduction of natural enemies of the pest, but not both, will work. Of course, neither will be needed if pest-resistant crops are planted. So if pesticides are in fact needed, it must be that there are no natural enemies of the pest.
If P then non N, if N then non P. If C, then non P, and non N. P, therefore non N.
Correct logic, but not similar to the stem.

(E) The city cannot afford to build both a new stadium and the new road that would be needed to get there. But neither of the two projects is worth doing without the other. Since the city will not undertake any but worthwhile projects, the new stadium will not be constructed at this time.
If S then non R, if R then non S. If non S then non R, if non R then non S. Therefore non S.
Correct logic, but not similar to the stem.

The answer is (B). This type of question is definitely a time eater. However you could stop working on each choice once you get to the unsimilar part, and do not have to judge if it is correct or not.
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 598
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 212 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 10:03
HongHu wrote:
"P unless S" means "If S then non P, if non S then P".

Hi Hong Hu
I am not sure if this is correct "P unless S" means "If S then non P, if non S then P".

Doesn't that mean If S then P, if not S then non P?

_________________

Regards, S

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 10:08
saurya, I shortened your quote so the post is clearer.

Anyway, please look at this example:
I'll go to school unless it rains.
It means:
If it rains, I won't go. If it doesn't rain, I'll go.
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 598
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 212 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 10:31
Thanks Honghu, so does it mean that 'unless' introduces mutually exclusive events?
_________________

Regards, S

Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 598
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 212 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 10:39
Thanks, never noticed that carefully in so many years!!
_________________

Regards, S

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 575 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 01:31
saurya_s wrote:
Paulsville and Longtown cannot both be included in the candidateâ€™s itinerary of campaign stops. The candidate will make a stop in Paulsville unless Salisbury is made part of the itinerary. Unfortunately, a stop in Salisbury is out of the question. Clearly, then, a stop in Longtown can be ruled out.
The reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following arguments?
(A) The chef never has both fresh radishes and fresh green peppers available for the chiefâ€™s salad at the same time. If she uses fresh radishes, she also uses spinach. But currently there is no spinach to be had. It can be inferred, then, that she will not be using fresh green peppers.
(B) Tom will definitely support Parker if Mendoza does not apply; and Tom will not support both Parker and Chung. Since, as it turns out, Mendoza will not apply, it follows that Chung will not get Tomâ€™s support.
(C) The program committee never selects two plays by Shaw for a single season. But when they select a play by Coward, they do not select any play by Shaw at all. For this season, the committee has just selected a play by Shaw, so they will not select any play by Coward.
(D) In agricultural pest control, either pesticides or the introduction of natural enemies of the pest, but not both, will work. Of course, neither will be needed if pest-resistant crops are planted. So if pesticides are in fact needed, it must be that there are no natural enemies of the pest.
(E) The city cannot afford to build both a new stadium and the new road that would be needed to get there. But neither of the two projects is worth doing without the other. Since the city will not undertake any but worthwhile projects, the new stadium will not be constructed at this time.

Try to pursuade myself. A and B are more likely.
Question:

Paulsville and Longtown are mutually exclusive.
If no Salisbury, then Paulsville
Because no Salisbury; so no Longtown.

(A)
radish and green pepper are mutually exclusive.
Because no spinach; so no green peppers.

(B)
Parker and Chung are mutually exclusive.
If no Mendoza, then Parker
Because no Mendoza; so no Chung

HongHu, are you GOD?
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 15:23
No. Most of the times I don't make rules; I just follow rules.
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 19:14
Here's a CR for you.

A: Are you God?
B: No. Most of the times I don't make rules; I just follow rules.

Question: what is the assumption underline B's statement?

(A) God exists.
(B) Nobody can be God.
(C) God makes rules all the time.
(D) God doesn't follow rules sometime.
(E) If I make rules all the time I will be God.
Manager
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 95
Location: Irvine, CA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 19:22
A B and D are out..

but I am wondering between C and E...
and comparing this 2....
I would choose C,

tell me if I am wrong....
_________________

discipline is what I need.

VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1440
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 19:36
HongHu wrote:
Here's a CR for you.

A: Are you God?
B: No. Most of the times I don't make rules; I just follow rules.

Question: what is the assumption underline B's statement?

(A) God exists.
(B) Nobody can be God.
(C) God makes rules all the time.
(D) God doesn't follow rules sometime.
(E) If I make rules all the time I will be God.

"E" if the ques had said....which of this is also must be "true"
"C" is the assumption.

Last edited by banerjeea_98 on 04 Mar 2005, 13:11, edited 2 times in total.
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 904
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 19:40
HongHu wrote:
Here's a CR for you.

A: Are you God?
B: No. Most of the times I don't make rules; I just follow rules.

Question: what is the assumption underline B's statement?

(A) God exists.
(B) Nobody can be God.
(C) God makes rules all the time.
(D) God doesn't follow rules sometime.
(E) If I make rules all the time I will be God.

hmmm.. I will go with (C).. Am I correct
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 575 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2005, 22:48
HongHu,

I'd prefer C, if we leave out the all the time.

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Mar 2005, 21:21
You are all very right.

Argument: I am not god because most of the times I don't make rules; Also I'm not god because I just follow rules.
If non A (making rules) then non C (god); (Equivalent to: C then A)
If B (following rules) then non C (god); (Equivalent to: C then non B)

Question: what is the assumption underline B's statement?

(A) God exists.
Out of scope.
(B) Nobody can be God.
Out of scope.
(C) God makes rules all the time.
If C then A. Correct.
(D) God doesn't follow rules sometime.
This one would be harder for me. "sometimes" means if C then B may or may not be true.
(E) If I make rules all the time I will be God.
If A then C. WRONG.
We know that non A then non C, and that C then A. But we don't know if A then C.

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 31 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
10 A reason Larson cannot do the assignmen 13 27 Feb 2014, 03:05
Psychologist: The obligation to express gratitude cannot be 11 17 Feb 2012, 15:14
The usefulness of lie detectors cannot be overestimated. 5 17 Jun 2009, 23:30
Pausville and Longtown cannot both be included in the 6 27 Sep 2007, 18:27
The usefulness of lie detectors cannot be overestimated. 8 12 Sep 2007, 23:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by