A
People tend to be far less aware of their own appearance and behavior than are other people.
B
People tend not to notice the appearance or behavior of others.
C
We are actually less observant of the appearance and behavior of others than we think ourselves to be.
D
People will notice the appearance or behavior of others only if it is specifically highlighted in some way.
E
People tend to believe their appearance and behavior are noticed by others more often than is actually the case.
A
The population has significantly increased in every age group.
B
The purchase of peeled and chopped carrots has become very popular, though carrots are known to lose their vitamins quickly once peeled.
C
Certain cuisines that have become popular use many more vegetable ingredients, including carrots, than most cuisines that were previously popular.
D
Carrot consumption has increased only among those demographic groups that have historically had low vitamin A deficiency rates.
E
Weather conditions have caused a decrease in the availability of carrots.
A
Only a cash-flow statement can accurately document all monthly expenses.
B
Any business that has overexpanded can benefit from the use of a cash-flow statement.
C
When a business documents only monthly expenses it also documents only monthly revenue.
D
A cash-flow statement is the only way to track both monthly expenses and expenses that are not monthly.
E
When a business takes into account all expenses, not just monthly ones, it can make better decisions.
We have an MBT question which we can glean from the question stem which reads: If the statements above are true, then on the basis of them which one of the following must also be true?
Our stimulus tells us that in the year 1990, the municipality of Queesnton raised taxes that increased the budget of its school system. The schools in turn used the increase in budget to increase the number of teachers they employed by 30%. However, the average number of students per teacher remained constant between 1990 and 1993.
This is almost phrased like an RRE question, right? It’s constructed as if there’s a paradox here. But let’s think about this: is it hard to reconcile the fact that the number of teachers went up while the average number of students to teachers stayed the same? No! Think about it: if the total number of dogs went up in NYC but the number of dogs per household stayed the same, would that make sense? Yes! It just means there are more households that own dogs. If we think about this as a fraction, both the numerator and denominator (top and bottom) of the fraction went up at the same rate. The same thing could be true for our students per teacher average, right? If the number of teachers went up and the number of students rose at the same rate (in this case 30%), then the average number of students per teacher would remain the same.
Ok now that we’ve synthesized the information here, let’s look at the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) We need the classes to increase in enrollment because otherwise the number of students would remain constant while the number of teachers would increase. This would throw off our proportion so the average number of students per teacher would not remain the same.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we need. If the number of teachers goes up, we need the number of students to increase as well in order for the average number of students per teacher to remain the same.
Answer Choice (C) This is unsupported. We know that the increase in budget allowed the school district to hire more teachers, but it’s really immaterial how much the budget increased by. We already know the number of teachers increased, how the budget corresponds to that is not necessary for us to understand.
Answer Choice (D) There’s nothing to suggest that the district either retained old teachers or hired new teachers–the bottom line is that the number of teachers increased.
Answer Choice (E) This is completely unrelated to the ratio of students to teachers and is wholly unsupported by our passage.
A
No classes in Queenston’s school system experienced an increase in enrollment between 1990 and 1993.
B
The total number of students enrolled in Queenston’s school system increased between 1990 and 1993.
C
The operating budget of Queenston’s school system increased by exactly 30 percent between 1990 and 1993.
D
Most teachers who worked for Queenston’s school system in 1990 were still working for the system in 1993.
E
The quality of education in Queenston’s school system improved between 1990 and 1993.
Detailed Explanation
We have an MBT question which we can glean from the question stem which reads: If the statements above are true, then on the basis of them which one of the following must also be true?
Our stimulus tells us that in the year 1990, the municipality of Queesnton raised taxes that increased the budget of its school system. The schools in turn used the increase in budget to increase the number of teachers they employed by 30%. However, the average number of students per teacher remained constant between 1990 and 1993.
This is almost phrased like an RRE question, right? It’s constructed as if there’s a paradox here. But let’s think about this: is it hard to reconcile the fact that the number of teachers went up while the average number of students to teachers stayed the same? No! Think about it: if the total number of dogs went up in NYC but the number of dogs per household stayed the same, would that make sense? Yes! It just means there are more households that own dogs. If we think about this as a fraction, both the numerator and denominator (top and bottom) of the fraction went up at the same rate. The same thing could be true for our students per teacher average, right? If the number of teachers went up and the number of students rose at the same rate (in this case 30%), then the average number of students per teacher would remain the same.
Ok now that we’ve synthesized the information here, let’s look at the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) We need the classes to increase in enrollment because otherwise the number of students would remain constant while the number of teachers would increase. This would throw off our proportion so the average number of students per teacher would not remain the same.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we need. If the number of teachers goes up, we need the number of students to increase as well in order for the average number of students per teacher to remain the same.
Answer Choice (C) This is unsupported. We know that the increase in budget allowed the school district to hire more teachers, but it’s really immaterial how much the budget increased by. We already know the number of teachers increased, how the budget corresponds to that is not necessary for us to understand.
Answer Choice (D) There’s nothing to suggest that the district either retained old teachers or hired new teachers–the bottom line is that the number of teachers increased.
Answer Choice (E) This is completely unrelated to the ratio of students to teachers and is wholly unsupported by our passage.
The question stem reads: The career consultant's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that it. This is a Flaw question.
The consultant begins the argument by claiming the most popular career advice suggests emphasizing one's strengths and downplaying one's weaknesses to employers. The consultant then claims that research shows this advice to be incorrect. We have referential phrasing, so let's rephrase that claim to research shows emphasizing one's strengths and downplaying one's weaknesses to employers is bad advice. So if you are an employee, it is ill-advised to emphasize your good qualities and downplay your bad qualities, which is the consultant's conclusion.
Before we move forward, ask yourself what kind of research would provide the best evidence for the consultant's claim. Imagine if the consultant cited a study using dogs. Would you think that is excellent evidence for a claim about employees? Of course, you wouldn't because dogs are not the same as employees. Unless you are a Police K9, but let's not get too technical here. Good evidence would be research on employees. We want to be anticipating what the argument ought to say. If what the argument actually says deviates from what the argument ought to say, then bingo - we have found our flaw.
So what research does the consultant use? They say that a study of 314 managers shows that those who use self-deprecating humor in front of their employees are more likely to be seen by them (the employees) as even-handed, thoughtful, and concerned than those (the managers) who do not. Wait a minute, did the consultant just cite research about how managers present themselves to employees to conclude how employees should present themselves to employers? The argument uses evidence about one group to make a conclusion about another group. That is our flaw right there. Let's move to the answer choices.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is exactly what we identified as a flaw. When we map the stimulus onto (A), we get Bases a conclusion about how one group (managers) will respond to self-deprecation on information (the study of 314 managers) about how a different group (the employees) responds to it (self-depreciation). Bingo.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect because the argument's conclusion is not about humor; the conclusion says that employees should not downplay weakness and emphasize strength. If the consultant's conclusion were about how managers should use (any type of) humor in front of their employees, then (B) would look better.
Answer Choice (C) is wrong because the research cited by the consultant says that managers who used self-deprecating humor were in a more positive light than managers who did not use self-deprecating humor. So the proposed problem in (C) is covered by the argument. (C) would look better if the stimulus said, "Managers who used self-deprecating humor were seen positively by employees," instead of comparing the managers who used the humor and those who did not. Even then, we would still run into the mismatch between employees and managers.
Answer Choice (D) is simply not done by the argument. Eliminate it.
Answer Choice (E) is the popular wrong answer, but I think that is primarily out of desperation. It is difficult to map this onto the stimulus. Those who picked (E) likely saw that the manager made a conclusion about the popular career advice (to emphasize strengths and downplay weaknesses). However, the evidence cited by the researcher is not a critique of that career advice. It is simply research.
A
bases a conclusion about how one group will respond to self-deprecation on information about how a different group responds to it
B
ignores the possibility that what was viewed positively in the managers’ self-deprecating humor was the self-deprecation and not its humor
C
ignores the possibility that non-self-deprecating humor might have been viewed even more positively than self-deprecating humor
D
infers from the fact that self-deprecating humor was viewed positively that nonhumorous self-deprecation would not be viewed positively
E
bases a conclusion about certain popular career advice on a critique of only one part of that advice
The question stem reads: The career consultant's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that it. This is a Flaw question.
The consultant begins the argument by claiming the most popular career advice suggests emphasizing one's strengths and downplaying one's weaknesses to employers. The consultant then claims that research shows this advice to be incorrect. We have referential phrasing, so let's rephrase that claim to research shows emphasizing one's strengths and downplaying one's weaknesses to employers is bad advice. So if you are an employee, it is ill-advised to emphasize your good qualities and downplay your bad qualities, which is the consultant's conclusion.
Before we move forward, ask yourself what kind of research would provide the best evidence for the consultant's claim. Imagine if the consultant cited a study using dogs. Would you think that is excellent evidence for a claim about employees? Of course, you wouldn't because dogs are not the same as employees. Unless you are a Police K9, but let's not get too technical here. Good evidence would be research on employees. We want to be anticipating what the argument ought to say. If what the argument actually says deviates from what the argument ought to say, then bingo - we have found our flaw.
So what research does the consultant use? They say that a study of 314 managers shows that those who use self-deprecating humor in front of their employees are more likely to be seen by them (the employees) as even-handed, thoughtful, and concerned than those (the managers) who do not. Wait a minute, did the consultant just cite research about how managers present themselves to employees to conclude how employees should present themselves to employers? The argument uses evidence about one group to make a conclusion about another group. That is our flaw right there. Let's move to the answer choices.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is exactly what we identified as a flaw. When we map the stimulus onto (A), we get Bases a conclusion about how one group (managers) will respond to self-deprecation on information (the study of 314 managers) about how a different group (the employees) responds to it (self-depreciation). Bingo.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect because the argument's conclusion is not about humor; the conclusion says that employees should not downplay weakness and emphasize strength. If the consultant's conclusion were about how managers should use (any type of) humor in front of their employees, then (B) would look better.
Answer Choice (C) is wrong because the research cited by the consultant says that managers who used self-deprecating humor were in a more positive light than managers who did not use self-deprecating humor. So the proposed problem in (C) is covered by the argument. (C) would look better if the stimulus said, "Managers who used self-deprecating humor were seen positively by employees," instead of comparing the managers who used the humor and those who did not. Even then, we would still run into the mismatch between employees and managers.
Answer Choice (D) is simply not done by the argument. Eliminate it.
Answer Choice (E) is the popular wrong answer, but I think that is primarily out of desperation. It is difficult to map this onto the stimulus. Those who picked (E) likely saw that the manager made a conclusion about the popular career advice (to emphasize strengths and downplay weaknesses). However, the evidence cited by the researcher is not a critique of that career advice. It is simply research.