leoros

Wow-astic ! Yes, after going through your reasoning, C holds good for me too. B/w - Wish you all a very happy and fulfilling new year '06 !

Premise 1 : Blackbirds eat significant portion of sunflower crop during fall migration. Premise 2 : Farmers set out poisoned rice in spring to reduce the blackbird population in fall . Assumption : Farmers intend to mitigate the blackbird population during fall and not spring (when the rice is set out). Conclusion : Small amounts of poisoned rice would be set out in the spring to moderate the population of birds in fall. IMO - B B , best explains how to moderate the population of Blackbird in fall. It also explains the rationale behind the wildlife agency approving the permit despite the concerns raised by some residents. By POE , the stalemate was b/w A and B . 'A' does not clearly explain how to control the bird's population , and its affect on other rare migatory birds. OA please .

Premise 1: Lyme disease is caused by a bacterium transmitted to humans by deer ticks. Premise 2 : deer ticks pick up the bacterium while in the larval stage from feeding on infected whitefooted mice Premise 3 : other species on which the larvae feed do not harbor the bacterium Assumption : By increasing the population of other species; the tick larvae would feed on hosts that donot harbor the bacterium Conclusion : By increasing the population of other species , the number of tick related diseases may decline. Option B , in affect weakens the argument by stating that there are 'no' known cases of humans contracting Lymes's disease through white-footed mice. IMO - D By POE , the stale mate was b/w D and E. E mentions something about other bacteria, hence concluded it is out of scope. D if considered together with the afore stated assumption, reduces the probablility of ticks contracting the bacterium at the larval stage. OA please?

Knowledgeseeker, Yes , I agree with your answer and explanation. I failed to notice "there would be" , which made all the difference. Thanks. Dailymailme : :blush: (Sorry ...... )

Agreed , option A does weaken the argument , but isn't the option out of scope; since the analysis is that the small firms went out of business by the advent of superstores. Option A does not consider the influence of superstore on the small businesses, but emphasises the non-participation of the big customers in the retail market. Could the above stated be used to rule out A?

49. A milepost on the towpath read "21" on the side facing the hiker as she approached it and "23" on its back.She reasoned that the next milepost forward on the path would indicate that she was halfway between one end of the path and the other. However, the milepost one mile further on read "20" facing her and "24" behind. Which of the following, if true, would explain the discrepancy described above? (A) The numbers on the next milepost had been reversed. (B) The numbers on the mileposts indicate kilometers, not miles. © The facing numbers indicate miles to the end of the path, not miles from the beginning. (D) A milepost was missing between the two the hiker encountered. (E) The mileposts had originally been put in place for the use of mountain bikers, not for hikers.

A toughie for sure ! Premise 1 : Superstores high sales value keeps their prices low. Premise 2 : Many small firms have gone of business. Conclusion : Recently, in equipment retail business , many small firms have gone out of business caused by the advent of superstores. Counter-Evidence : Only a small section of the retail market is controlled by Superstores. IMO - C Initially , the stalemate was between B and D. But on second reading of the argument ; I believe the counter-evidence and option C when considered together would further weaken the analysis/conclusion. OA please.

dailymailme , I believe you misunderstood the question .. The last word in the argument is 'no' . The question pattern is similar to EXCEPT type of questions that we see commonly . With this in mind , Wouldn't C be the closest answer ?

IMO- D The 1 st BF is the advocate's conclusion and the 2nd BF the managers evidence countering the advocate. Also , I need to add that I could not ascertain whether position and conclusion may be used interchangeably. If it helps, you could find few useful definitions posted by Dreamz and piyusht here : http://www.www.urch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25935 OA, please.

Another vote for B. The stale mate was between A and B.

IMO - C Premise 1 : Republic of Grootland ( RG ) encourages borrowing by granting relief on tax for the interest paid on the loan. Premise 2 : RG also discourages saving by taxing the interest accrued on saving . Conclusion : Though RG encourages borrowing , she does not "consistently" favour borrowing to saving. Consistently, in the argument highlights that borrowing is at times discouraged. C best supports this conclusion when one cannot avail tax relief on interest charged on balance amount(borrowed) in credit cards. Please correct me if I am wrong. OA please.

i re-read the question , and still feel C looks conclusive than B. I feel B is out of scope as we have inadequate information to juxtapose the energy expended while sterilizing 'each' nylon instrument with the total expended energy for manufacture. Suggestions ... Braggs2 , could you please publish the OA .

IMO C. From my understanding , it's important that the patients without Pironoma (false positive) may be checked firstly , to conclude the detection of disease accurately. C , provides the strongest support to this conclusion since it is quint-essential that the disease is detected early to prevent fatalities. Hence its imperative that the false positive patients are confirmed to be disease-free. Supporters of E , i tried to break down your reasoning but in vain. Could you please care to discuss your answer . Thanks.

IMO - B I believe the question calls for a reasoning that weakens the argument. Conclusion : The origins of a discipline must be evaluated , when assessing scientific values. Premise : Alchemy - the blemished origin of chemistry is being considered for scientific evaluation. Counter Argument : B ,clearly states how the author fails to consider the contemporary theories and practices , which differs from those that the alchemists mentioned. This weakens the conclusion. OA , please.

C looks good to me. If not ,could you please reason for eliminating C. Also , OA please.