vikram_k51

It's A. Statement A alone is sufficient. B alone is not.:tup::idea:

Dr. Tonegawa won the Nobel Prize for discovering how the body can constantly change its genes to fashion a seeming unlimited number of antibodies, each specifically targeted at an invading microbe or foreign substance. A) seeming unlimited number of antibodies, each specifically targeted at------>Ok (B) seeming unlimited number of antibodies, each targeted specifically to---->Wrong Idiom,'targeted to' © seeming unlimited number of antibodies, all specifically targeted at----->Ok (D) seemingly unlimited number of antibodies, all of them targeted specifically to-------->Wrong Idiom,'targeted to' (E) seemingly unlimited number of antibodies, each targeted specifically at----->Wrong use of adverb'seemingly' Hence A

Sixty-five million years ago, according to some scientists, an asteriod bigger than Mount Everest slammed into North America, which, cause plant and animal extinctions, marks the end of the geologic era known as the Cretaceous Period. a) Wrongly used Present Tense b) which caused the plant and animal extinctions marking----->Wrong modifier c) and cause plant and animal extingctions that mark----->Wrong Tense d) an event that caused the plant and animal extinctions, and it marks---Correct e) an event that caused the plant and animal extinctions that mark ---->It seems that plant and animals mark the end

1. As the price of gasoline rises, which makes substituting alcohol distilled from cereal grain attractive, the prices of bread and livestock feed are sure to increase. (A) which makes substituting alcohol distilled from cereal grain attractive (B) which makes substituting the distillation of alcohol from cereal grain attractive © which makes distilling alcohol from cereal grain an attractive substitute (D) making an attractive substitution of alcohol distilled from cereal grain (E) making alcohol distilled from cereal grain an attractive substitute I would go with E.

The OLEX Petroleum Company has recently determined that it could cut its refining costs by closing its Grenville refinery and consolidating all refining at its Tasberg refinery. Closing the Grenville refinery, however, would mean the immediate loss of about 1,200 jobs in the Grenville area. Eventually the lives of more than 10,000 people would be seriously disrupted. Therefore, OLEX’s decision, announced yesterday, to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits. Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument given? The argument is :"to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits." A. The Grenville refinery, although it operates at a higher cost than the Tasberg refinery, has nevertheless been moderately profitable for many years.This does not weaken the above. B. Even though OLEX could consolidate all its refining at the Tasberg plant, doing so at the Grenville plant would not be feasible.----->Which is what the company does.It does not show its social concern or anything against it.NO C. The Tasberg refinery is more favorably situated than the Grenville refinery with respect to the major supply routes for raw petroleum.---->Does not undermine it. D. If the Grenville refinery were ever closed and operations at the Tasberg refinery expanded, job openings at Tasberg would to the extent possible be filled with people formerly employed at Grenville.---->Yes.This gives an alternative to closing the plant yet not resulting in job-loss. E. Closure of the Grenville refinery would mean compliance, at enormous cost, with demanding local codes regulating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites.----------->Even this might be true.This seems better. E seems best.E shows why the company does not close the plant.It gives an alternate explanation for not closing the Plant at Grenville.

1. Many psychologists and sociologists now contend that the deliberate and even brutal aggression integral to some forms of competitive athletics increase the likelihood of imitative violence that erupts among crowds of spectators dominated by young adult males. (A) increase the likelihood of imitative violence that erupts (B) increase the likelihood that there will be an eruption of imitative violence © increase the likelihood of imitative violence erupting (D) increases the likelihood for imitative violence to erupt (E) increases the likelihood that imitative violence will erupt

1. Many investors base their choice between bonds and stocks on comparing bond yields to the dividends available on common stocks. (A) between bonds and stocks on comparing bond yields to (B) among bonds and stocks on comparisons of bond yields to © between bonds and stocks on comparisons of bond yields with (D) among bonds and stocks on comparing bond yields and (E) between bonds and stocks on comparing bond yields with

1. Lower-level management function most effectively when they have thorough training and unimpeded communication with workers, supervisors, and one another. (A) management function most effectively when they have (B) managers function most effectively when they have © management functions most effectively when they have (D) managers function most effectively when they have received (E) management functions most effectively when it has

OA is B

Guys what is the correct usage? Less limitation Or Fewer limitations??? IMO Fewer limitations is correct.You can count the number of limitations.Depends on the usage though.

I would have liked to have gone swimming yesterday. A. to have gone swimming B. to go swimming C. to had gone swimming D. to go to swim E. to of gone swimming

47.If m and k are consecutive even integers is k>m? 1). k-1 and m+2 are not consecutive integers 2). k-2 and m+1 are consecutive integers If we assume k>m And test for 3 different scenarios: k=4;m=2 k=2;m=-2; k=-2;m=-4 Then From A: k-1(3,1,-3)and m+2(4,0,-2) gives consecutive Integers.Hence assumption is wrong nd so k Likewise if with above values and k m=4;k=2 m=2;k=-2; m=-2;k=-4 then A: m+2(6,4,0) and k-1(1,-3,-5) are not consecutive.Hence assumption correct.Thus m>k A Sufficient If for the same values and assumption k>m From B: k-2(2,0,-4) and m+1(3,-1,-3) are not consecutive. Thus k Thus D

In the equation x^2 + mx + n = 0, x is a variable and m and n are constants. What is the value of n ? (1) x + 2 is a factor of x^2 + mx + n (2) The equation x^2 + mx + n = 0 has only one real root Statement A gives : x=-2 as a root.Substituting this in the eqn gives: 4-2m+n=0 Or n=2m-4 Not Sufficient From B; If we know that the Eqn has only 1 real root then it is an asymptote. Now such a figure will then have infinte values of m,n.Hence this is not sufficient. Thus E

64.Each of a, b, c, d can be represented by 2^n, where n is positive integer. If 1 1). a+b+c+d=170 2). A*b*c*d=2^16 From A: The powers of 2 are: 2^1=2 2^2=4 2^3=8 2^4=16 2^5=32 2^6=64 2^7=128 2^8=256 Hence the max value of 2^n=128,because any power of 2 less than that won't add to 170. Since d is the greatest of all d=2^7=128. BTW a=2;b=8;c=32 and d=128 B alone is not sufficient.There can be many combinations which give a power of 16. Hence A The

If rs ≠ 0, does 1/r+1/s=1? (1) rs = 1 (2) s + r = 2.5 (A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient. (B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient. © BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient. (D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient. (E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient. Question Rephrase: Is r+s=rs? From1 rs=1;Not Sufficient From 2 r+s=2.5;Not sufficient Together r+s not=rs Hence C