Apple, the company that has the highest revenue per employee, focusesmore on simple and functional design thanits competitors.Meaning Analysis Apple, the company that has the highest revenue per employee, focusesmore on simple and functional design thanits competitors.The sentence presents a comparison. However, the way this sentence is written, one can infer two comparisons:First Comparison: Apple focuses more on simple and functional design than on its competitors. Entities Compared simple and functional design and competitors.Second Comparison: Apple focuses more on simple and functional design than its competitors focus on. Entities Compared Apple and its competitors.The correct sentence should clearly state one unambiguous meaning.Error AnalysisIf the sentence is intended to compare simple and functional design and competitors (stating that Apple focuses on design more than it focuses on its competitors), then we need the pronoun on before its competitors to make the comparison clear.If the sentence is intended to compare Apple and its competitors (stating that Apple focuses on design more than its competitors do), then we need the helping verb do before its competitors to make the comparison clear.Answer Choicesmore on simple and functional design thanIncorrect: This choice has the error pointed out in the error analysis.

Bon more simple yet functional design thanIncorrect: 1) This choice repeats the same ambiguous comparison error as in choice A.2) Change of placement of more changes the meaning. As per the original sentence, more modifies focuses. Apple focuses more on design than its competitors. As per this choice, more modifies simple. Here the emphasis is not on the action of focusing but on the design itself.3) Use of yet changes the meaning. As per the original choice, and suggests that the design is simple and functional. Use of the word yet brings in a contrast, implying that even though the design is simple, it is functional. The original sentence does not present this contrast.

more on simple and functional design than onCorrect:Use of the preposition on makes the comparison clear. The sentence states that Apple focuses on design more than it focuses on its competitors.

Don simple and functional design thanIncorrect:1) Use of than requires the use of some comparative terms such as more to present the comparison. Without the word more, the comparison is incomplete.2) This choice repeats the same ambiguous comparison error as in choice A.

Emore on simple design and is more functional than areIncorrect: 1) This choice distorts the intended meaning. As per this choice, the subject for is is Apple. The choice states that Apple is more functional whereas, per the original choice, the design is functional.2) Also, the choice suggests a comparison between Apple and the competitors on the basis that Apple is more functional. This is certainly not the intended meaning of the sentence.

As it is almost categorically accepted, the most intelligent scientists are those who interpret empirical data to draw independent conclusions rather than just bolstering already credited scientific hypotheses.Meaning Analysis As it is almost categorically accepted, the most intelligent scientistsare those whointerpret empirical data to draw independent conclusions rather than just bolstering already credited scientific hypotheses.The sentence says something is almost a norm. What is that something? The something is that as per the accepted belief the most intelligent scientists are those who use factual data to make independent conclusions rather than to strengthen already credited scientific hypotheses.Error AnalysisThe sentence uses the idiom X rather than Y where X and Y should be grammatically as well as logically parallel. Here, X = to draw and Y = bolstering. These two entities are not grammatically parallel to each other. This is the only error in this sentence.Answer ChoicesAAs it is almost categorically accepted, the most intelligent scientists are those who interpret empirical data to draw independent conclusions rather than just bolstering already credited scientific hypotheses.Incorrect: This choice has the error stated in the error analysis.

BRather than just bolstering already credited scientific hypotheses, the most intelligent scientists are the ones who interpret empirical data to draw independent conclusions, which is almost categorically accepted.Incorrect: 1) This choice distorts the parallel list.1. Per the intended meaning, the differentiation between the two segments of scientists comes from the intended use oftheir interpretation of empirical data1. Most Intelligent Scientists - to drawindependent conclusions or2. Other Scientists - to bolsteralready created hypothesis.2. Per this choice, the differentiation between the two segments comes from what they do1. Most Intelligent Scientists -interpret empirical datato draw independent conclusion2. Other Scientists -bolster already created hypothesis. Note this choice does not indicate that segment 2 interprets empirical data.2) Per the intended meaning the relative pronoun modifier which should modify the preceding clause. But its placement is such that it modifies the preceding noun - independent conclusions and hence distorts the meaning of the sentence. Note that this modifier cannot be used to modify a clause.

Almost categorically accepted, the fact that the scientists who are the most intelligent dont just interpret empirical data to draw independent conclusions, but can also bolster already credited scientific hypotheses.Incorrect: 1) There is no verb for the subject the fact.2) Use of can also is incorrect as it distorts the intended meaning of the sentence. As per the original sentence, the most intelligent scientists are those who interpret data to draw conclusions rather than to bolster already credited hypotheses. As per this choice, the most intelligent scientists are those who interpret data to do both.

DThe most intelligent scientists are the ones who interpret empirical data, which is almost categorically accepted, rather than just bolster already credited scientific hypotheses.Incorrect: This relative pronoun modifier which incorrectly refers to empirical data. According to the intended meaning, it is not empirical data that is categorically accepted but the fact that certain scientists are considered the most intelligent.

It is almost categorically accepted that the most intelligent scientists are those who interpret empirical data to draw independent conclusions rather than just bolster already credited scientific hypotheses.Correct: This is the correct answer choice as it rectifies the only error of Choice A. Please note that to is understood before bolster as to is already present before the first entity in the list draw. Hence, it is not necessary to repeat it before bolster.

A little-known fact from Michelangelos early years as an artist is thathe forged a statue in 1496, treating it with acid to make it look like an antique, and sold it for far more than it was actually worth.Meaning Analysis A little-known fact from Michelangelos early years as an artist is thathe forgeda statue in 1496, treating it with acid to make it look like an antique, and sold it for far more than it was actually worth.The sentence presents some historical facts about Michelangelo. The sentence begins by stating a fact about Michelangelos early years as an artist. Michelangelo forged a statue in 1496. The sentence then provides additional information about how he forged it: he treated it with acid to make it look like an antique. He sold this statue for far more than its actual value.Error AnalysisThe pronoun he logically refers to the noun Michelangelo. This is a grammatical error since this noun is not present in the sentence, which uses the possessive form Michelangelos.Answer Choiceshe forged a statue in 1496, treating it with acid to make it look like an antiqueIncorrect: This choice has the error pointed out in the error analysis.

Bhis 1496 statue was a forgery, which was treated with acid to make it look like an antiqueIncorrect:1) The passive verb was treated does not convey the meaning that Michelangelo himself treated the statue with acid.2) The verbs was and sold are not logically parallel, leading to a nonsensical meaning. The sentence now states that his 1496 statue was a forgery and sold it. The statue clearly did not perform the action of selling itself.

Che forged a statue in 1496 that was treated with acid, making it look like an antique Incorrect:1) This choice has the same pronoun error as option A does. 2) Like Choice B, this choice also uses the passive verb was treated, leading to a meaning error.

Michelangelo forged a statue in 1496, treating it with acid to make it look like an antiqueCorrect: This choice is the correct answer as it fixes the pronoun error of option A by using the noun Michelangelo.

Ea statue treated with acid to make it look like an antique was forged in 1496 Incorrect:1) This option does not make it clear that Michelangelo himself forged the statue.2) It also repeats the parallelism error of Choice B since the verbs was and sold are not logically parallel to each other.

The original Ancient Greek gymnasiums were incredibly advanced andhad more in common with our modern universities than with our local fitness clubs, holding lectures and discussions on philosophy, literature, and music, and offering free public libraries, long before teachers such as Plato and Aristotle had begun their work.Meaning Analysis The original Ancient Greek gymnasiums were incredibly advanced and hadmore in common with our modern universities than with our local fitness clubs, holding lectures and discussions on philosophy, literature, and music, and offering free public libraries, long before teachers such as Plato or Aristotle had begun their work.

This sentence talks about the original Ancient Greek gymnasiums. It says that these gymnasiums were very advanced and that they had more in common with our modern universities than with our local fitness clubs.The sentence then goes on to describe how these gymnasiums were similar to modern universities:1. They held lectures and discussions on philosophy, literature, and music.2. They offered public libraries for free.All this happened before teachers such as Plato or Aristotle started their work. Error AnalysisThe use of the past perfect tense had begun is incorrect since it has been used for a later event. The advanced Ancient Greek gymnasiums existed before Plato and others began their work.Answer ChoicesAhad more in common with our modern universities than with our local fitness clubs, holding lectures and discussions on philosophy, literature, and music, and offering free public libraries, long before teachers such as Plato and Aristotle had begun their workIncorrect:This choice has the error pointed out in the error analysis.

Bheld lectures, discussed philosophy, literature, and music, and offered free public libraries long before teachers such as Plato and Aristotle began their work, having more in common with our modern universities than our local fitness clubsIncorrect: The comma + verb-ing modifier having incorrectly refers to the preceding clause teachers began their work. The teachers did not have anything in common with modern universities; the Ancient Greek gymnasiums did.

had more in common with our modern universities than with our local fitness clubs, holding lectures and discussions on philosophy, literature, and music, and offering libraries free to the public, long before teachers such as Plato and Aristotle began their workCorrect:This choice corrects the only error from the original sentence by changing the past perfect tense into the simple past tense.

Dhave more in common with our modern universities than our local fitness clubs; they held lectures and discussions on philosophy, literature, and music, and offered libraries free to the public, long before teachers such as Plato and Aristotle had begun their workIncorrect:1) The simple present tense have is incorrectly used to present a fact from the past.2) Removing with before our local fitness clubs, this choice presents an ambiguous comparison. The two possible comparisons here are:1. The gymnasiums had more in common with the modern universities than they had with local fitness clubs2. Or the gymnasiums had more in common with the modern universities than the local fitness clubs had in common with the modern universities.3) This choice has the same verb tense error as in choice A.

were more like our modern universities than our local fitness clubs, holding lectures and discussions on philosophy, literature, and music as well as offering free public libraries, long before teachers such as Plato or Aristotle had begun their work Incorrect:1) This choice has the same comparison error as in choice D.2) It also has the same verb tense error as in choice A.

In the financial year 2010-11, the increase in demand due to the relatively stable economy after the recession increased Indias service exports to $133 billion, nearly 38 percent more thanthat of 2009-10.Meaning Analysis In the financial year 2010-11, the increase in demand due to the relatively stable economy after the recession increased Indias service exports to $133 billion, nearly 38 percent more thanthat of 2009-10. This sentence tells us that in 2010-2011, Indias service exports rose to $133 billion. This increase was because of the relatively stable economy after the recession. These exports were nearly 38 percent more than the exports of 2009-2010.Error AnalysisSingular pronoun that refers to the plural noun exports, resulting in pronoun-antecedent number agreement error.Answer Choicesthat of 2009-10Incorrect:This choice has the error pointed out in the error analysis.

those of 2009-10Correct:This choice rectifies the only error of the original sentence by using the plural pronoun those to refer to the plural noun exports.

Cit did in its 2009-10 exportsIncorrect: The construction of this choice is such that it appears that the pronoun it refers to India and the pronoun its refers to Indias. First of all it cannot grammatically refer to India since India does not exist in the sentence. Note that the sentence has Indias and not India.Secondly, this reference is absolutely illogical. It appears to indicate that India did the increase in its exports. This is not correct since the increase happened because of the factors stated. It was not as if India as a country undertook some measures to make this increase happen.

Dthose of its 2009-10 service exportsIncorrect:Since this choice already uses the noun service exports the pronoun those becomes redundant.

Eit exported in 2009-10Incorrect:As in choice C, the pronoun it appears to refer to India, but this antecedent does not exist in the sentence.

A film is more likely to have a complex storyline when it is directed by a director who has won an Academy Award. Regardless of the awards won by the director, a film with a complex storyline is more likely to do badly at the box-office than a film with a story-line that is not complex. Since other causes of poor box-office performance are not related to the awards won by the director, there must be more films with poor box-office collections with Academy Award-winning directors than with directors who have not won any Academy Awards.The argument above is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?Argument Analysis

Pre-ThinkingConclusion ClarificationThe authorconcludesthat total number of films with poor BO collections directed by AWDs would be greater than total number of films with poor BO collections directed by NAWDs. The conclusion is based on the fact that AWDs are more likely to direct a film with CS, and irrespective of the awards won by the director, films with CS are more likely to perform worse at box office than films without CS. All other factors behind poor performance of films at box office are unrelated to awards won by the directors.Pre-Thinking ApproachTo pre-think a flaw in the reasoning, lets see how we can falsify this conclusion. To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1 and the conclusion. We will understand the condition under which the conclusion is falsified. Thus, the flaw would show a logical gap in the authors reasoning while reaching the conclusion.Linkage#1 Falsification Condition: What if the total number of films directed by NAWDs is significantly more than that directed by AWDs? In such a case, there may not be more films with poor BO collections with AWDs than with NAWDs. Flaw: The argument is vulnerable to the criticisms that there is an abrupt jump from the premises given to the conclusion drawn.The argument has arrived at the conclusion without comparing the actual total number of films made by Academy Award winning directors and the ones made by the rest of the directors.To understand the same, please consider the following scenario:CategoryTotal films directed (A)Total films with Complex story-lineLikelihood that a film with complex story-line will perform poorly at box office (B)Total films that performed poorly at Box Office (=A*B)

Academy Award winning directors10080% = 8080%64

Other directors100020% = 200160

With this pre-thinking in mind, lets evaluate the answer choices.Answer ChoicesAIt ignores the fact that a film that does not do well on the box-office may eventually do well when broadcasted on TV.Incorrect - No flawThis statement is ofno relevanceto the argument since the argument is concerned with the performance of the films only at the box office.

It fails to consider a scenario in which the number of films directed by directors who have not won Academy Awards is significantly more than that directed by directors who have won Academy Awards.CorrectThis choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage #1. It points out that the argument does not compare the actual total number of films made by AWDs and NAWDs. If we see the pre-thinking example, we can notice that the authors conclusion is incorrect for the particular scenario.

It identifies one aspect of the films as the sole determinant of their box office performance without considering other possible aspects.Incorrect - No flawThis statement is incorrect since thepassage does talk about other factorsbesides a complex storyline that determine a films performance at the box office. The passage says that all other factors are not related to awards won by directors.

DIt fails to consider a scenario in which directors may be aware of the fact that a complex storyline may not translate into a successful box-office collection.Incorrect - No flawThe awareness of directors regarding the eventual box-office performance of their films is ofno relevanceto the authors conclusion.

EIt fails to factor in the number of films with poor box-office collections that were directed by Academy Award-winning directors and that ultimately won critical acclaim.Incorrect - No flawThis statement isirrelevantsince the authors conclusion is concerned with only the box-office performance of such films.

The South-African anti-apartheid revolutionary, Nelson Mandela, also known as Madiba or Tata (Father),faced several charges during his fight against the government, spending 27 years in prison, was elected the President of South Africa in 1994, only four years after he had comeout of prison.Meaning Analysis The South-African anti-apartheid revolutionary Nelson Mandela, also known as Madiba or Tata (Father), facedseveral charges during his fight against the government, spending 27 years in prison, was electedthe President of South Africa in 1994, only four years after hehad comeout of prison.This sentence presents a few facts about the South-African anti-apartheid revolutionary Nelson Mandela, who was also known as Madiba or Tata. Mandela:1. faced many charges when he was fighting against the government.1. This led to him spending 27 years in jail.2. became the president of South Africa in 1994, four years after his release from the prison.Error AnalysisThe verbs in the parallel list faced and elected are grammatically parallel. However, they should be connected using a parallelism marker, which is missing from the sentence.Note that use of past perfect tense is correct in the clause he had come out because Mandela first came out of the prison and then became the president. However, use of had come out is OPTIONAL here and even simple past tense verb came out will also be correct here because after explicitly establishes the time sequencing.Answer ChoicesAfaced several charges during his fight against the government, spending 27 years in prison, was elected the President of South Africa in 1994, only four years after he had comeIncorrect: This choice has the error pointed out in the error analysis.

faced several charges during his fight against the government, spending 27 years in prison, and was elected the President of South Africa in 1994, only four years after comingCorrect: This choice corrects the only error of Choice A by adding and before was elected.

Cwho faced several charges during his fight against the government, having spent 27 years in prison, and was elected the President of South Africa in 1994, only four years after he had comeIncorrect:1) There is no verb for the subject Nelson Mandela since who is the subject of the verbs faced and was elected in this choice.2) This choice distorts the intended meaning since having spent illogically implies that he faced several charges after spending 27 years in prison. This is exactly opposite to the intended meaning.

faced several charges during his fight against the government while spending 27 years in prison and was elected the President of South Africa in 1994, only four years after he cameIncorrect: This choice also changes the intended meaning. This choice non-sensically implies that he faced several charges while he spent 27 years in prison.

Ewho faced several charges during his fight against the government and spent 27 years in prison, being elected the President of South Africa in 1994, only four years after he cameIncorrect:1) This choice retains the missing verb error of Choice C.2) This choice distorts the parallel list. Now instead of faced and elected being part of the list, faced and spent have been made parallel. Also, elected has been made a verb-ing modifier, leading to distortion of meaning.

Many stage actors follow a form of method-acting in which the emphasis is on understanding the psychology of the characters being played and keeping in mind how the characters would have reacted in various situations being enacted. In their pre-rehearsal stage, they go to extremes such as living in situations similar to their hypothetical characters. Therefore, it is highly likely that such actors are very consistent in their initial performance in rehearsals and their final on-stage performance.Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the above argument?Argument Analysis

Pre-ThinkingConclusion ClarificationN/APre-Thinking ApproachLets see how we can make the conclusion more believable. To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1, and try to come up with assumptions. The strengthener could be based around these assumptions. Accordingly, the first step in the process is to think of a falsifying situation in which the conclusion doesnt hold. The assumption then will be that this condition does not exist.Linkage #1:Falsifying condition:Any reason that shows that there can be a significant inconsistency between the initial rehearsal performance and final on-stage performance of actors following method acting. Instance: As rehearsals progress, some factor influences the performances, leading to a significant difference between the initial and final performance. Assumption: No factor influences a significant change in performance between the first rehearsal and final on-stage performances. Strengthener: The actors do not get significantly better in their performances as they progress in their rehearsals.With this understanding in mind, let's take a look at the option statements.Answer ChoicesFor an actor, the repetition of a performance in rehearsals adds little to the understanding of the character being played.CorrectThis choice is on the same lines as our pre-thinking analysis. It states that the actors understanding of the characters does not change with repeat rehearsals and hence furthers our belief in the conclusion.

BThere are some props that are available to actors only on the final day of the show.Incorrect - IrrelevantWe do not know how these props affect the performance of the actor.

CMany famous and highly paid actors are from acting schools that specialize in teaching method-acting.Incorrect - IrrelevantThe actors in method acting are not important. The difference in the performance is the focus of the discussion.

It is very likely for a method-actor playing the role of a beggar to actually dress up and wear torn and soiled clothes throughout the preparation stage to understand the psychology of the character.Incorrect - IrrelevantHow the actors get in to character is not the main focus of the argument. The consistency in performance is the main question here.

EThese days many film actors prefer to do multiple rehearsals with their co-actors to fully understand the character they are portraying.Incorrect - IrrelevantThis statement does not talk about method acting or stage actors.

The inmates of Arizona state prison who are selected by the state forest department to work as wilderness firefighters eat in the same cafeterias, sleep in the same campsites, and wear the same uniforms as their professional counterparts do,defying the rigid relationship barriers enforcedinside prison walls.View SolutionAnswer ChoicesAdefying the rigid relationship barriers enforced

defying the relationship barriers enforced rigidly

Cthey defy the rigid relationship barriers enforced

Dan arrangement to defy the relationship barriers that are enforced rigidly

an arrangement that defies the rigid relationship barriers enforced

Ships during the Baroque period usually had four masts as well as gigantic figureheads, usually representing angels or other divine beings that were believed to protect the ship, that could only be installed in place once the ships stemhead was fixed in place. The recently-discovered wreck of theEndeavor, a Royal Navy warship from the Baroque age known to have been destroyed in abattle, has a stemhead but not a figurehead. Clearly, the figurehead must have been either destroyed or detached from the ship during the battle it was part of.Which of the following would most help to assess the conclusion above?Argument Analysis

Pre-ThinkingConclusion ClarificationThe conclusion states that the FH onEndeavormust have been either destroyed or detached from the ship during the battle.Pre-Thinking ApproachIn order to evaluate the linkage, well pre think assumptions by thinking of conditions that will falsify the conclusion. The assumptions then will be that these conditions dont exist. To do so, lets look at linkage 1 and understand the conditions under which it doesnt hold.Linkage#1 Falsification Condition: What if, not all ships from the Baroque period that had an SH had an FH too? What if SH could also be fixed for purposes other than installing an FH? In other words, what if an FH wasnt installed in the ship? In such a case, its possible that the Endeavour didnt have an FH and thus it couldnt have been destroyed or detached. Thus, the linkage will not hold. Assumptions1:All sailing ships from the Baroque period that had an SH also had an FH installed in that place. Assumption2:For an SH, no other possible purpose existed such that it could require fitting the SH on the ship even without an FH.An answer choice that evaluates any of the fundamental assumptions made by the author will be the correct choice. With this pre-thinking in mind, lets evaluate the answer choices.Answer ChoicesAWhether the figurehead onEndevaorwas similar to that found on other ship-wrecks from the Baroque periodIncorrect - IrrelevantThe similarity of the figurehead has nothing to do with determiningwhether it existed on the ship in the first place or not.

Whethera stemhead could have been installed for purposes unrelated to holding a figureheadCorrectThis choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage assumption 2. If the stemhead could have been installed for other reason, reasons not related to holding a figurehead, then it is quite possible that even though the ship had a stemhead but not a figurehead. However, if the answer to the question is no, then it increases our faith in the author's conclusion.

CWhether the historians unanimously agree thatthe Royal Navy actually participated in the battle in which it was known to have been destroyed inIncorrect - Already statedThe passage already tells us that the Royal Navy was a part of the battle.

DWhether ships from periods other than the Baroque also had stemheads to support figureheadsIncorrect - IrrelevantEvaluating whether ships from other periods also had SHs to support FHs doesn't tell us whether Endeavour had an FH to begin with.

Whether most military ships of the Baroque period were mounted with figureheadsIncorrect - No new InformationWe are already told in the passage that the shipsusuallyhad figureheads. Hence, this choice does not add anything to our understanding of the argument.The authors primarily concerned withPassage AnalysisParagraphReading and Thinking(in mind)My Paragraph Summary(written)

Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them.Two normal ways of classifying logical arguments:1. deductive2. inductiveExplains one of the two usual processes for arriving at a logical argument

In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true.How deductive arguments are arrived at:1. start with premises2. premises = true3. if premises true, what else could be true

For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true.Eg. of the above

With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct.The argument you arrive at by deduction, you can be 100% sure of it, as your premises are regarded correct.

The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.BUT the premises are beyond the reach of being tested.

On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data.Process of arriving at inductive arguments:1. begin with some data2. analyse it and see what kind of conclusions can be drawn from itElaborates on the process of arriving at the second kind of argument

In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data.The conclusions you are drawing are with respect to what explains the data.

For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited.Eg. of the above:Data suggest that chances of becoming schizophrenic greatly enhanced if one parent is schizophrenic.Your conclusion: Schizophrenia may be hereditary.

That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data.As per the process of induction, the conclusion is reasonable.

Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct.BUT this process does not prove the theory you arrived at.

There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data.Data could easily lead to other theories.

For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes.Same data used to arrive at a different theory.

What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data.The important part of this process is that the conclusion arrived at does offer a logical explanation of the data.

To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.If from the same data one concludes that there is no relation between the schizophrenia observed between the two generations is not a logical conclusion through this process.

Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach.Neither of the two processes is sufficient on its own for a scientific approach.Evaluates both the processes in terms of how scientific they are

While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises.+ve of deduction = gives 100% proof-ve of deduction = no way to test the basis in the first place

And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory.+ve of induction = through observation of real data-ve of induction = no conclusive theory

Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.A combination of the two is required for a scientific approach

Summary and Main Point

PrethinkingThis is a Main Idea question. The correct choice must be broad enough to encompass the various sections of the passage but specific enough to not veer outside the scope of the passage. Also, before going in to the answer choices, you must come to an approximate idea of what the author wants to convey through the passage. In fact, as soon as you finish reading the passage, you should have a fair idea of the primary purpose/main idea of the passage. Accordingly, lets take a look at the overall structure of the passage.As seen in the summary and main point section above, the author explains the two processes in the first two paragraphs and then goes on to evaluate them in the last paragraph. This evaluation is done with respect to how scientific these processes are. So we can conclude that the main purpose of the author is to explain the two normal processes of arriving at a logical argument and evaluate them on a specific criterion.With this understanding in mind, lets evaluate the answer choices.Answer Choicesdescribing two modes of constructing a logical argumentIncorrect: Partial ScopeThis choice barely captures the scope of the first two paragraphs and fails to account for the final one. In addition to describing the two processes, the author also explains them in detail and then evaluates them in the end with respect to how they fare on a particular criterion.

explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionCorrectThis choice is on the same lines as our pre-thought answer. The specific criterion mentioned in the choice refers to how scientific these processes are.

Cdiscussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachIncorrect: InconsistentFirst of all, the author doesnt say that the processes are not relevant for a scientific approach. He/she says that neither of two approaches is sufficient on its own. Secondly, this discussion is limited to only the third paragraph.

Destablishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived atIncorrect: Out of ContextThe negative points of the two processes are mentioned with respect to evaluating these process in terms of how scientific they are. The author by no means call them illogical. In fact, this statement goes against the following information given to us in the passage:For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited.That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data.

Eestablishing the supremacy of one process over the otherIncorrect: OppositeFirst of all, the two processes are not pitched against each other in terms of which one of two is more credible in its way of developing an argument. Secondly, the author clearly states that neither of two processes is sufficient on its own for a scientific approach.Which one of the following statements is true as per the information given in the passage?Passage AnalysisParagraphReading and Thinking(in mind)My Paragraph Summary(written)

Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them.Two normal ways of classifying logical arguments:1. deductive2. inductiveExplains one of the two usual processes for arriving at a logical argument

In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true.How deductive arguments are arrived at:1. start with premises2. premises = true3. if premises true, what else could be true

For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true.Eg. of the above

With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct.The argument you arrive at by deduction, you can be 100% sure of it, as your premises are regarded correct.

The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.BUT the premises are beyond the reach of being tested.

On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data.Process of arriving at inductive arguments:1. begin with some data2. analyse it and see what kind of conclusions can be drawn from itElaborates on the process of arriving at the second kind of argument

In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data.The conclusions you are drawing are with respect to what explains the data.

For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited.Eg. of the above:Data suggest that chances of becoming schizophrenic greatly enhanced if one parent is schizophrenic.Your conclusion: Schizophrenia may be hereditary.

That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data.As per the process of induction, the conclusion is reasonable.

Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct.BUT this process does not prove the theory you arrived at.

There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data.Data could easily lead to other theories.

For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes.Same data used to arrive at a different theory.

What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data.The important part of this process is that the conclusion arrived at does offer a logical explanation of the data.

To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.If from the same data one concludes that there is no relation between the schizophrenia observed between the two generations is not a logical conclusion through this process.

Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach.Neither of the two processes is sufficient on its own for a scientific approach.Evaluates both the processes in terms of how scientific they are

While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises.+ve of deduction = gives 100% proof-ve of deduction = no way to test the basis in the first place

And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory.+ve of induction = through observation of real data-ve of induction = no conclusive theory

Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.A combination of the two is required for a scientific approach

Summary and Main Point

PrethinkingSince this is an open ended Detail question we cannot pre-think on specific terms. However, we must keep in mind that the correct answer will directly flow from whats explicitly stated in the passage.Answer ChoicesDeduction as a process does not allow for experimentation.CorrectThis information is explicitly given to us in the final paragraph.Reference:While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world;there is no place for observation or experimentation- no way to test the validity of the premises.

BThere are only two ways to classify a logical argument.Incorrect: InconsistentIn the first sentence, the author tells us that logical arguments areusuallyclassified in two ways, allowing for the possibility that there could be more, not so often used way of classifying them.

CThe conclusions arrived at through the process of induction do not take in to account any actual reference points.Incorrect: OppositeWe are clearly told in the second paragraph that:in the process of induction,you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from those data.The data sets are indeed reference points. Hence, this choice states just the opposite of what we are given in the passage.

If the premises of the arguments derived through the deduction process are tested, the validity of most such arguments will be jeopardized.Incorrect: Out of ContextThe author says that deduction on its own is not scientific since the premises are never really validated. This does not mean that if the premises are tested, most of them will turn out to be invalid.

EThe process of deduction takes in to account the possibility that the basis of the conclusion is questionable.Incorrect: OppositeThis statement goes against the information given in the first paragraph.Reference:The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable;they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.