Author 
Message 
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 117

If, in a tennis tournament, a match reaches a fifthset [#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Sep 2008, 00:37
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 4 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
If, in a tennis tournament, a match reaches a fifthset tiebreak, the lowerranked player always loses the tiebreak (and, therefore, the match). If Rafael, the secondranked player, wins a tournament by beating Roger, the topranked player, then the match must not have included a fifthset tiebreak.
Which of the following arguments most closely mimics the reasoning used in the above argument?
(A) If a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant three times, she will have one set of twins. Jennifer, who falls into this category, had two sets of twins, so she must not have gotten pregnant exactly three times. (B) If a salesman sells more product than anyone else in a calendar year, then he will earn an allexpensespaid vacation. Joe earned an allexpensepaid vacation, so he must have sold more product than anyone else for the year. (C) A newspaper can charge a 50% premium for ads if its circulation surpasses 100,000; if the circulation does not pass 100,000, therefore, the newspaper can't charge any kind of premium for ads. (D) If a student is in the top 10% of her class, she will earn a college scholarship. Anna is not in the top 10% of her class, so she will not earn a scholarship. (E) All of the players on a football team receive a cash bonus if the team wins the Super Bowl. If quarterback Tom Brady earned a cash bonus last year, he must have been a member of the winning Super Bowl team.



Manager
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 59

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Sep 2008, 01:56
IMO B



Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Posts: 193

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Sep 2008, 04:35
dancinggeometry wrote: If, in a tennis tournament, a match reaches a fifthset tiebreak, the lowerranked player always loses the tiebreak (and, therefore, the match). If Rafael, the secondranked player, wins a tournament by beating Roger, the topranked player, then the match must not have included a fifthset tiebreak.
Which of the following arguments most closely mimics the reasoning used in the above argument?
(A) If a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant three times, she will have one set of twins. Jennifer, who falls into this category, had two sets of twins, so she must not have gotten pregnant exactly three times. (B) If a salesman sells more product than anyone else in a calendar year, then he will earn an allexpensespaid vacation. Joe earned an allexpensepaid vacation, so he must have sold more product than anyone else for the year. (C) A newspaper can charge a 50% premium for ads if its circulation surpasses 100,000; if the circulation does not pass 100,000, therefore, the newspaper can't charge any kind of premium for ads. (D) If a student is in the top 10% of her class, she will earn a college scholarship. Anna is not in the top 10% of her class, so she will not earn a scholarship. (E) All of the players on a football team receive a cash bonus if the team wins the Super Bowl. If quarterback Tom Brady earned a cash bonus last year, he must have been a member of the winning Super Bowl team. I went to A. For B, there is a possibility (whatever the extent is) that he got the vacation from other sources. But in A, getting a baby is only feasible from pregrancy. SO A works better than B.



Manager
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 176

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Sep 2008, 07:08
A for me as well. It is wrong reasoning so, A matches this reasoning.
What is the OA?



Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 765

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Sep 2008, 14:43
Sentence 1: If (Precondition) Then particular action Sentence 2: If ( Not Particular action) Then not Precondition
Answer: D resembles this



VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1373

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Sep 2008, 14:51
I am totally blown away by this sucker. Can some one explain me how to solve mimic the reasoning Q's?



Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 280

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Sep 2008, 15:03
B for me too
D is good but there is a problem :
in the stimulus (if A then B , if not B then not A)
D has (if A then B . if not A then not B)
keeping this in mind
A and B are good
Now B is more convincing because in A (the sentence doesn't say only one set of twins)



Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 144

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Sep 2008, 15:28
A for me.



Manager
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 176

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Sep 2008, 16:44
so what is the OA?
anyone?



Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 117

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Sep 2008, 21:37
1
This post received KUDOS
On a "mimic the argument" question, it's useful to use logic notation to understand the flow of the argument. In this case, we're told that IF A happens (a match reaches a fifthset tiebreak), THEN B will definitely happen (the lowerranked player loses). Standard logic rules tell us that, when given "If A, then B," the only definite conclusion we can draw is "If not B, then not A." In other words, if A always leads to B, and B doesn't happen, then A can't have happened either. The second sentence of the argument shows this principle: If not B (the lowerranked player doesn't lose), then not A (there wasn't a fifthset tiebreak). So we need to find another argument that follows this pattern: If A, then B; if not B, then not A.
(A) CORRECT. If A (a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant 3 times), then B (she will have 1 set of twins). Note that these numbers are precise: if she gets pregnant exactly three times, she will have exactly one set of twins. If not B (a woman with a family history of twins has 2 sets of twins  that is, not 1), then not A (she must have gotten pregnant either fewer than 3 times or more than 3 times  that is, not exactly 3 times).
(B) If A (a salesman sells more product than anyone else), then B (he will earn an allexpensespaid vacation). If B (Joe earned the trip), then A (he must have sold more than anyone else). We can see why logic rules do not include "if B, then A" as a logical conclusion: A may always lead to B, but B does not necessarily have to lead to A. There may be other ways to earn the trip besides selling more than anyone else.
(C) If A (a newspaper's circulation surpasses 100,000), then B (the newspaper can charge a 50% premium). If not A (the circulation doesn't surpass 100,000), then not C (the newspaper cannot charge any premium). The final assertion here does not match the initial A / B argument We know nothing about any other premium the newspaper might charge; we are only given information about charging a 50% premium.
(D) If A (a student is in the top 10% of the class), then B (she will earn a scholarship). If not A (Anna is not in the top 10%), then not B (she won't earn a scholarship). We can see why logic rules do not include "if not A, then not B" as a logical conclusion: A may always lead to B, but it doesn't have to be the only way to reach B. There may be other ways to earn a scholarship besides being in the top 10% of the class.
(E) If A (the team wins the Super Bowl), then B (the players receive a bonus). If not A (a player was not on the winning team), then not B (the player won't receive a bonus). We can see why logic rules do not include "if not A, then not B" as a logical conclusion: A may always lead to B, but it doesn't have to be the only way to reach B. There may be other ways to earn a bonus besides winning the Super Bowl.



Manager
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 176

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Sep 2008, 05:10
a good one with the explanation! thanks



Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 138

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Sep 2008, 05:21
dancinggeometry wrote: On a "mimic the argument" question, it's useful to use logic notation to understand the flow of the argument. In this case, we're told that IF A happens (a match reaches a fifthset tiebreak), THEN B will definitely happen (the lowerranked player loses). Standard logic rules tell us that, when given "If A, then B," the only definite conclusion we can draw is "If not B, then not A." In other words, if A always leads to B, and B doesn't happen, then A can't have happened either. The second sentence of the argument shows this principle: If not B (the lowerranked player doesn't lose), then not A (there wasn't a fifthset tiebreak). So we need to find another argument that follows this pattern: If A, then B; if not B, then not A.
(A) CORRECT. If A (a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant 3 times), then B (she will have 1 set of twins). Note that these numbers are precise: if she gets pregnant exactly three times, she will have exactly one set of twins. If not B (a woman with a family history of twins has 2 sets of twins  that is, not 1), then not A (she must have gotten pregnant either fewer than 3 times or more than 3 times  that is, not exactly 3 times).
(B) If A (a salesman sells more product than anyone else), then B (he will earn an allexpensespaid vacation). If B (Joe earned the trip), then A (he must have sold more than anyone else). We can see why logic rules do not include "if B, then A" as a logical conclusion: A may always lead to B, but B does not necessarily have to lead to A. There may be other ways to earn the trip besides selling more than anyone else.
(C) If A (a newspaper's circulation surpasses 100,000), then B (the newspaper can charge a 50% premium). If not A (the circulation doesn't surpass 100,000), then not C (the newspaper cannot charge any premium). The final assertion here does not match the initial A / B argument We know nothing about any other premium the newspaper might charge; we are only given information about charging a 50% premium.
(D) If A (a student is in the top 10% of the class), then B (she will earn a scholarship). If not A (Anna is not in the top 10%), then not B (she won't earn a scholarship). We can see why logic rules do not include "if not A, then not B" as a logical conclusion: A may always lead to B, but it doesn't have to be the only way to reach B. There may be other ways to earn a scholarship besides being in the top 10% of the class.
(E) If A (the team wins the Super Bowl), then B (the players receive a bonus). If not A (a player was not on the winning team), then not B (the player won't receive a bonus). We can see why logic rules do not include "if not A, then not B" as a logical conclusion: A may always lead to B, but it doesn't have to be the only way to reach B. There may be other ways to earn a bonus besides winning the Super Bowl. +1 for the explaination



Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 765

Re: Zumit CR 013 [#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Sep 2008, 18:43
Good one










