|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 418
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that [#permalink]
 08 Nov 2006, 18:20
Question Stats:
45% (02:08) correct
55% (01:44) wrong based on 7 sessions
Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.
The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well
(B) relies on the ambiguous use of a key term
(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent
(D) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon
(E) is based on premises that cannot all be true
Please explain your reasoning .......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 718
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
Looks like C.
Will explain if it's right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[2] , given: 0
|
2
This post received
KUDOS
gmacvik wrote: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.
The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well
(B) relies on the ambiguous use of a key term
(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent
(D) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon
(E) is based on premises that cannot all be true
Please explain your reasoning .......
Tough question. I would bet on A.
Eating Pretzels can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. Eating Caramels also can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. These are correlations in individual categories.
Caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, does not mean that caramels are less likely to cause cavities. Because, caramels might cause cavities in the short time they are in touch with teeth. Caramels may get dissolved fast, but they may be more dangerous per unit of time compared to pretzels.
Hence, the argument is right in relating in individual categories, but not right when comparing across categories (caramels and pretzels).
_________________
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1138
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
ak_idc wrote: gmacvik wrote: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.
The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well
(B) relies on the ambiguous use of a key term
(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent
(D) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon
(E) is based on premises that cannot all be true
Please explain your reasoning ....... Tough question. I would bet on A. Eating Pretzels can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. Eating Caramels also can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. These are correlations in individual categories. Caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, does not mean that caramels are less likely to cause cavities. Because, caramels might cause cavities in the short time they are in touch with teeth. Caramels may get dissolved fast, but they may be more dangerous per unit of time compared to pretzels. Hence, the argument is right in relating in individual categories, but not right when comparing across categories (caramels and pretzels). One more for A. Text book explanation!!! PLEASE tell me what you are using for CR prep. I really need some help for CR 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5289
Followers: 17
Kudos [?]:
91
[0], given: 0
|
Between A and C here.
I'll take (A) for the usage of "indivual categories."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 440
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
A as explained above
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 148
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
Yes the correlation that staying longer in contact with teeth increases the likelihood that a cavity will be created holds true for pretzel. the author uses the same correlation with caramel. Therefore the criticism of the above argument is best explained by A.
_________________
Neelabh Mahesh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 155
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Go for C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 732
Location: Madrid
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
ak_idc wrote: gmacvik wrote: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.
The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well
(B) relies on the ambiguous use of a key term
(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent
(D) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon
(E) is based on premises that cannot all be true
Please explain your reasoning ....... Tough question. I would bet on A. Eating Pretzels can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. Eating Caramels also can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. These are correlations in individual categories. Caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, does not mean that caramels are less likely to cause cavities. Because, caramels might cause cavities in the short time they are in touch with teeth. Caramels may get dissolved fast, but they may be more dangerous per unit of time compared to pretzels. Hence, the argument is right in relating in individual categories, but not right when comparing across categories (caramels and pretzels). Wow)Nice explanation
_________________
IE IMBA 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 74
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
ak_idc, Great explanation.
I would pick A. OA please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 226
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 11
|
I still don't quite get this question, can someone help me again with this one, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Posts: 41
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
+1 for A, my reasoning echos gmacvik's
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Posts: 114
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 25
|
tough one between A and C. I would vote for C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Posts: 82
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 31
|
I would opt for D.
The argument above is prone to serious criticism if the result as per the argument can be proved as the cause.. Do you agree?
in our case pritzels could be sticking on the teeth because of the cavities that are already there.. So a criticism like in the statement D would say pritxels are not causing cavities but cavities are causing pritzels to stick to the teeth.
Can somebody post the official answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 147
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 1
|
Yes OA please..
Can anybody explain why C cannot be the answer???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 177
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
24
[0], given: 39
|
Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that [#permalink]
15 Oct 2012, 22:18
I found nice discussion on this topic at pretzels-can-cause-cavities-interestingly-the-longer-that-20427.html
_________________
If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, I kinda need some =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that
[#permalink]
15 Oct 2012, 22:18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
