The new agriculture bill will almost surely fail to pass, the leaders of all major parties have stated that they oppose it.Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the prediction that the agriculture bill will fail to pass?
Answer(s): A
Sometimes the simplest arguments prove to be the toughest questions. The conclusion is that the new bill will almost surely fail to pass. The evidence is that the leaders of all major parties have stated that they oppose it.In order to strengthen this argument, you need to find a statement that most accurately describes the situation in which this bill finds itself. In other words, you need to stay within the scope. Option [Most bills that have not been supported by...] says that most bills that have not been supported by even one leader (that's the same as our bill, which is opposed by leaders of all major parties) have not been passed into law (which is what our conclusion predicts--that the bill will fail to pass).
The folktale that claims that a rattlesnake's age can be determined from the number of sections in its rattle is false, but only because the rattles are brittle and sometimes partially or completely break off. So if they were not so brittle, one could reliably determine a rattlesnake's age simply from the number of sections in its rattle, because one new section is. formed each time a rattlesnake molts.Which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?
Answer(s): E
More debunking -- this time of an old rattlesnake folktale. We cannot, in fact, tell the age of a rattlesnake by the number of its rattle sections, but only because these sometimes break off. The author concludes (note the Conclusion Keyword "so") that if these sections didn't break off, we would be able to tell the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections. This would certainly make sense if we knew the precise amount of time it takes a rattlesnake to form a new section, and this interval never changed. But notice that we're told only that a new section appears every time a snake molts. How often is that? If it's variable, then the author's claim is bogus -- we wouldn't be able to tell the age simply from the number of sections. In order for the claim in the last sentence to hold up, we need to know that the intervals at which rattlesnakes molt are consistent. Note that we don't need to know the exact time of the molting periods -- only that there is an exact timing for this and that it doesn't change. So choice [Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year.] is a red herring whereas correct choice [Rattlesnakes molt as often when...] relates to the real issue at hand: If molting time is variable depending on food availability, then the whole theory goes out the window. The author must therefore assume that no such molting variations occur.
Tony: A new kind of videocassette has just been developed. It lasts for only half as many vie wings as the old kind does but costs a third as much. Therefore, video rental stores would find it significantly more economical to purchase and stock movies recorded on the new kind of videocassette than on the old kind. Anna: But the videocassette itself only accounts for 5 percent of the price a video rental store pays to buy a copy of a movie on video; most of the price consists of royalties the store pays to the studio that produced the movie. So the price that video rental stores pay per copy would decrease by considerably less than 5 percent, and royalties would have to be paid on additional copies.Anna's reply is structured to lead to which one of the following conclusions?
Answer(s): D
Our next confrontation features Tony vs. Anna in a video debate. Tony asserts that video stores would make out economically if they bought and stocked movies recorded on the new kind of videocassette. The decreased lifespan of the new tapes, Tony reasons, is outweighed by their cheaper cost. Anna's reply, which is the focus of Q. 23, begins with the Contrast Keyword "But," so no doubt she takes exception to Tony's advice for the video stores. She points out that the cost of the videocassette is only a small fraction of the overall cost of buying a videotaped movie, the bulk of the expense residing in the royalty fee. Each time a tape wears out (and these new-fangled ones wear out faster than the older ones), a store incurs another royalty fee. It's not hard to see where Anna is going with this: The overall cost savings Tony touts will be very minimal, if they exist at all, because the area in which Tony's savings accrue represents only a tiny fraction of the overall cost.
Tony: A new kind of videocassette has just been developed. It lasts for only half as many vie wings as the old kind does but costs a third as much. Therefore, video rental stores would find it significantly more economical to purchase and stock movies recorded on the new kind of videocassette than on the old kind. Anna: But the videocassette itself only accounts for 5 percent of the price a video rental store pays to buy a copy of a movie on video; most of the price consists of royalties the store pays to the studio that produced the movie. So the price that video rental stores pay per copy would decrease by considerably less than 5 percent, and royalties would have to be paid on additional copies.Which one of the following, if true, would contribute most to a defense of Tony's position against Anna's reply?
Answer(s): C
Our familiarity with Anna's argument should now help us to turn the tables on her as we rush to Tony's defense.Remember, the sticking point for Anna is royalties. If we can somehow get around that, or at least lessen the impact of the royalty fees, we'd be able to revive Tony's argument. And that's all the prephrase we need: Only one choice even mentions royalties, and it turns out to be the winner here. If, as option [The royalty fee included in the price that...] maintains, royalties on the new videocassettes are half that of the old, then the force of Anna's response would be severely weakened, and Tony's advocacy of the new tapes would once again seem reasonable.
Physician: Heart disease generally affects men at an earlier age than it does women, who tend to experience heart disease after menopause. Both sexes have the hormones estrogen and testosterone, but when they are relatively young, men have ten times as much testosterone as women, and women abruptly lose estrogen after menopause. We can conclude, then, that testosterone tends to promote, and estrogen tends to inhibit, heart disease.The physician's argument is questionable because it presumes which one of the following without providing sufficient justification?
The question stem is just a wordy way of asking you to identify the logical flaw in the argument. This is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation. Just because X and Y appear together doesn't mean that X causes Y. Here the physician cites the evidence of high testosterone levels in younger men, and lower estrogen levels in post-menopausal women.The physician then couples this with the fact that men get heart disease earlier, and women get it later, and finally concludes that testosterone promotes heart disease, and estrogen tends to inhibit disease. Looking at this evidence, you can agree that hormone levels and heart disease do seem to be correlated, but does that necessarily mean that these hormones promote or inhibit disease? Might there be other causes? Couldn't the correlation just be coincidence? Once you have identified this flaw (and it should come naturally after having read numerous causal arguments) you should be able to go quickly to correct answer choice [Because hormone levels are correlated...].
People ought to take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing the scientific value of that discipline. Take, for example, chemistry. It must be considered that many of its landmark results were obtained by alchemists -- a group whose superstitions and appeals to magic dominated the early development of chemical theory.The reasoning above is most susceptible to criticism because the author
Answer(s): B
The question stem tells you that you're looking for a flaw in the argument. The author's argument in a nutshell says that in order to assess the value of a scientific discipline, you have to look at its origins. And as an example, he cites chemistry. According to his argument, to assess the value of chemistry, we have to take into account that its early practitioners believed in magic. This should have prompted you to say, "So what? Who cares what alchemists believed?" And that's essentially what option [fails to consider how chemistry's current...] says. The author fails to consider that chemistry is no longer practiced by alchemists, who believe in magic, so it makes no sense to judge its value based on how it was practiced in the past.
A government ought to protect and encourage free speech, because free speech is an activity that is conducive to a healthy nation and thus is in the best interest of its people.The main conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
This question stem may seem a bit unfamiliar, but hopefully you recognized it as a variation of a standard Assumption question. We're looking for the assumption that would complete the argument, so again, we need to identify the argument's evidence and conclusion. The author's conclusion is stated up front: A government ought to protect and encourage free speech. The Keyword "because" signals the author's evidence, that "free speech . . . is conducive to a healthy nation and thus is in the best interest of its people." This sounds like a pretty good argument so far, but it's missing a subtle step: We know that free speech is in the best interests of the people, but who's to say that the government ought to act in that interest? It seems obvious, but this notion isn't stated in the argument, and it's necessary for the argument to work.
The current theory about earthquakes holds that they are caused by adjoining plates of rock sliding past each other; the plates are pressed together until powerful forces overcome the resistance. As plausible as this may sound, at least one thing remains mysterious on this theory. The overcoming of such resistance should create enormous amounts of heat. But so far no increases in temperature unrelated to weather have been detected following earthquakes.Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?
An earthquake theory is plausible save one mystery: There should be lots of heat given off during earthquakes, but such increases in heat have not been detected. What's the main point? Simply that--the current theory doesn't fully explain earthquake data; specifically, the absence of enormous amounts of heat.
Share your comments for LSAC LSAT Section 2: Reading Comprehension exam with other users:
function of appnav in sdwan
Question 1:
Question 5:
Why this is correct
Question 7:
Question 104:
clustering keys
Q23: Fabric Admin is correct. Because Domain admin cannot create domains. Only Fabric Admin can among the given options. Q51: Wrapping @pipeline.parameter.param1 inside {} will return a string. But question requires the expression to return Int, so correct answer should be @pipeline.parameter.param1 (no {})
Question 62:
ZDX
Analyze Score
Y Engine
Question 32:
Question 3:
date = sys.argv[1]
sys.argv[1]
date = spark.conf.get("date")
input()
date = dbutils.notebooks.getParam("date")
dbutils.notebook.run
Question 528:
Question 23:The correct answer is Domain admin (option B), not Fabric admin.
Question 2:For question 2, the key concept is the Longest Prefix Match. Routers pick the route whose subnet mask is the most specific (largest prefix length) that still matches the destination IP. From the options:
Question 129:Correct answer: CNAME
compute.osAdminLogin
enable-oslogin
Question 2:
Recommend using AI for Solutions rather the Answer(s) submitted here
This is very interesting
Are these the same questions you have to pay for in ExamTopics?
For Question 7 - while the answer description indicates the correct answer, the option no. mentioned is incorrect. Nice and Comprehensive. Thankyou
This is very good and accurate. Explanation is very helpful even thou some are not 100% right but good enough to pass.
The DP-900 exam can be tricky if you aren't familiar with Microsoft’s specific cloud terminology. I used the practice questions from free-braindumps.com and found them incredibly helpful. The site breaks down core data concepts and Azure services in a way that actually mirrors the real test. As a resutl I passed my exam.
interesting
Passed this exam 2 days ago. These questions are in the exam. You are safe to use them.
Helpful to test your preparedness before giving exam
Really helped
Good explanation
very helpful
Question 1, Ans is - Developer,Standard,Professional Direct and Premier
Passed this exam in first appointment. Great resource and valid exam dump.
Today I wrote this exam and passed, i totally relay on this practice exam. The questions were very tough, these questions are valid and I encounter the same.
Anyone used this dump recently?