Ok
Trying to analyze the questions. First one the sixth
Quote:
A recent report determined that although only eight percent of drivers entering Banff National Park possessed yearly entry permits, as opposed to day passes, these drivers represented fifteen percent of all vehicles entering the Park. Clearly, drivers who possess yearly entry permits are more likely to enter Banff National Park on a regular basis than are drivers who do not.
The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?
A) The number of entries to Banff National Park by drivers with yearly entry permits does not exceed the number of yearly entry permits issued by the Park.
B) Drivers who possess yearly entry permits to Banff National Park are more likely to stay longer in the Park than drivers who do not.
C) All drivers with yearly entry permits to Banff National Park entered the Park at least once during the period of the report.
D) Drivers possessing yearly entry permits to Banff National Park are more likely to enter the Park regularly than are drivers who do not.
E) Drivers who entered Banff National Park with yearly permits during the period of the report were representative of the types of drivers who have entered other national parks with similar yearly permits.
From a logic standing point we do know that 8% of those who enter the parlk have a yearly pass and that at the same time they are 50% of all entries. So from this we can infer that
in proportion the are the majority of all entries. 8 people out of 16 have a yearly pass VS 8 people who could have a daily, weekly, monthly, semestral pass...we do not know. So the logic here leads me to think what: 8 people enter to visit the park on a regaular basis, more than what the other 8 people do. So, they have an entry at least once
The other options are not rerlated to this logic and to our argument conclusion. Now I hope is more clear. Aside the various strategy you can use to solve asusmption question, one among the others is always effective: must be true for the conslusion of the argument.
Now the 7th
Quote:
Steve: Rick and Harriet, two of my red-haired friends, are irritable. It seems true that red-haired people have bad tempers.
John: That’s ridiculous. Red-haired people are actually quite docile. Jeff, Muriel, and Betsy — three of my red-haired friends — all have placid demeanors.
Which of the statements below provides the most likely explanation for the two seemingly contradictory statements above?
A) The number of red-haired people whom Steve knows may be different from the number of red-haired people whom John knows.
B) The number of red-haired people whom both Steve and John know may not be greater in total than the number of non-red-haired people whom both Steve and John know.
C) It is likely that Steve or John has incorrectly assessed the temperament of one or more of his red-haired friends.
D) It is likely that both Steve and John have friends who are not red-haired and yet also have bad tempers.
E) The examples that Steve uses and the examples that John uses to support their conclusions are likely both valid.
C says
Quote:
s. It is also unclear whether choice C has any effect. Any mis-assessments may prove net positive or net negative or may have a counter-balancing effect.
Do not get intimitaded by the wording even of the explanation. It says, eventually: any evaluation could be pro steve or pro John or if pro john there could be something that disprove this (so go in favour of steve) or if is pro steve there could be something that goes in favour of john (a counter balance). In this scanario what do you think ?? basically what C says: is unclear which is which: who is right ?' who is wrong ?? and who is right or wrong maybe is disavowed.......
The only plausible option is E: both are right or
could be right. We have not enough information to decide where the pendulum falls.
Infact E says: The examples that Steve uses and the examples that John uses to support their conclusions
are likely both valid...........
LIKELYHope is clear