freestyler01
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#1
1. Last winter, heavy snowfalls prompted criticism of the Government for failing to ensure that the country is prepared for severe weather. Billions of pounds were lost to businesses through workers being unable to make their journey to work during a week of heavy snowfall. Others felt that these costs should be accepted philosophically. Given that the likelihood of a prolonged period of heavy snow in the UK is very low, it could be said that the high cost of investing in preventative measures would be unreasonable. Governments have to make an assessment of the probability of the event occurring, the cost of preventative measures and the cost of the event happening. In some cases the cost of preventative measures is too high when the risk is low. The recent severe weather is one such case. One might also consider the threats of pandemics such as bird flu, or asteroids hitting the earth, both of which might be considered ëlow risk but high cost.í
Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument above?
A. The Government has a responsibility to assess risks and costs of possible events.
B. The Government was right not to spend heavily on precautions against prolonged snowfall.
C. The Government should be spending more to protect us against pandemics and asteroids.
D. The Government should have spent more on precautions against prolonged snowfall.
E. The Government should compensate businesses for the billions of pounds lost during a week of snow.

Could someone please explain why the answer is B? I understand how B is a conclusion that can be drawn, but also A. The author says "Governments have to make an assessment of the probability of the event occurring, the cost of preventative measures and the cost of the event happening." Therefore, governments have a responsibility to make the risk-benefit assessment. Isn't that also a conclusion that can be drawn?

2. "Young British competitors today are too friendly, and this is affecting their chances of winning major championships. They are all too close, all the current generation are having lunch together and then going off to play for a million dollars.
In the past competitors had to win over and over again to become well known and create a future and a pension plan. These guys now have a future in a year. You can be a millionaire now in six months without even winning. They've got their own clothing lines, they advertise drinks and sportswear, and even have management companies guaranteeing them a signing-on fee for playing in a tournament. In the past it was necessary to play well just to be invited to top events. They started out with little or nothing and were lucky to receive £100 as expenses in one week. But look at what they achieved!"

Which of the following is a conclusion that can be drawn from the above passage?

A. The standard of play in Britain has declined over the years due to commitments outside the sport.

B. Nowadays, British players are more interested in money than players from other countries.

C. British players in the past were not on friendly terms with opponents.

D. Nowadays, players can make more money from appearances and outside commitments than they do from winning competitions.

E. Nowadays, it is much harder for British players to win a major championship due to commitments outside the sport.

I don’t see how D. is the correct answer. Nothing suggests players nowadays can make more money from other commitments than from competitions. In fact it says in the passage “They are all too close, all the current generation are having lunch together and then going off to play for a million dollars.” which suggests if they win they will make a million dollars.
I chose E. because it seems the players nowadays are less likely to win championships due to their commitments and in the passage it states “Young British competitors today are too friendly, and this is affecting their chances of winning major championships”
Last edited by freestyler01; 2 months ago
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 2 months ago
#2
(Original post by freestyler01)
1. Last winter, heavy snowfalls prompted criticism of the Government for failing to ensure that the country is prepared for severe weather. Billions of pounds were lost to businesses through workers being unable to make their journey to work during a week of heavy snowfall. Others felt that these costs should be accepted philosophically. Given that the likelihood of a prolonged period of heavy snow in the UK is very low, it could be said that the high cost of investing in preventative measures would be unreasonable. Governments have to make an assessment of the probability of the event occurring, the cost of preventative measures and the cost of the event happening. In some cases the cost of preventative measures is too high when the risk is low. The recent severe weather is one such case. One might also consider the threats of pandemics such as bird flu, or asteroids hitting the earth, both of which might be considered ëlow risk but high cost.í
Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument above?
A. The Government has a responsibility to assess risks and costs of possible events.
B. The Government was right not to spend heavily on precautions against prolonged snowfall.
C. The Government should be spending more to protect us against pandemics and asteroids.
D. The Government should have spent more on precautions against prolonged snowfall.
E. The Government should compensate businesses for the billions of pounds lost during a week of snow.

Could someone please explain why the answer is B? I understand how B is a conclusion that can be drawn, but also A. The author says "Governments have to make an assessment of the probability of the event occurring, the cost of preventative measures and the cost of the event happening." Therefore, governments have a responsibility to make the risk-benefit assessment. Isn't that also a conclusion that can be drawn?

2. "Young British competitors today are too friendly, and this is affecting their chances of winning major championships. They are all too close, all the current generation are having lunch together and then going off to play for a million dollars.
In the past competitors had to win over and over again to become well known and create a future and a pension plan. These guys now have a future in a year. You can be a millionaire now in six months without even winning. They've got their own clothing lines, they advertise drinks and sportswear, and even have management companies guaranteeing them a signing-on fee for playing in a tournament. In the past it was necessary to play well just to be invited to top events. They started out with little or nothing and were lucky to receive £100 as expenses in one week. But look at what they achieved!"

Which of the following is a conclusion that can be drawn from the above passage?

A. The standard of play in Britain has declined over the years due to commitments outside the sport.

B. Nowadays, British players are more interested in money than players from other countries.

C. British players in the past were not on friendly terms with opponents.

D. Nowadays, players can make more money from appearances and outside commitments than they do from winning competitions.

E. Nowadays, it is much harder for British players to win a major championship due to commitments outside the sport.

I don’t see how D. is the correct answer. Nothing suggests players nowadays can make more money from other commitments than from competitions. In fact it says in the passage “They are all too close, all the current generation are having lunch together and then going off to play for a million dollars.” which suggests if they win they will make a million dollars.
I chose E. because it seems the players nowadays are less likely to win championships due to their commitments and in the passage it states “Young British competitors today are too friendly, and this is affecting their chances of winning major championships”
Q1 - Yes, you are correct that answer A is a correct answer, but read the question: "Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument above". Note what I have put in bold. Although answer A is 'correct', it is not the main conclusion of that passage: the main 'takeaway' is that HMG was right not to spend vastly on preparations for this event, which is Answer B.

Q2 - You need to read the passage more carefully. Again, Answer D is clearly the only answer which contains a conclusion which you could draw from what is written in the passage:

"You can be a millionaire now in six months without even winning. They've got their own clothing lines, they advertise drinks and sportswear, and even have management companies guaranteeing them a signing-on fee for playing in a tournament"
0
reply
freestyler01
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#3
(Original post by Reality Check)
Q1 - Yes, you are correct that answer A is a correct answer, but read the question: "Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument above". Note what I have put in bold. Although answer A is 'correct', it is not the main conclusion of that passage: the main 'takeaway' is that HMG was right not to spend vastly on preparations for this event, which is Answer B.

Q2 - You need to read the passage more carefully. Again, Answer D is clearly the only answer which contains a conclusion which you could draw from what is written in the passage:

"You can be a millionaire now in six months without even winning. They've got their own clothing lines, they advertise drinks and sportswear, and even have management companies guaranteeing them a signing-on fee for playing in a tournament"
Thank you.

On Q2, you're right. Just noticed that E. wouldn't be correct because it says it's harder for them to win due to commitments but it's more due to them being too friendly, according to the text. Because it's harder for them to win, they're very likely winning less, then it's possible they will be making more money from outside commitments than championships eventhough the championships make a lot of money ("going off to play for a million dollars"), which is what D. suggests. Thanks.

Would you mind taking a look at this one please (it's a bit longer)?

The following passages are all concerned with understanding human history. The passages were published between the middle of the nineteenth century through to the early twentieth century.
I
Modern history has rejected the beliefs of the ancients without replacing them by a new conception, and the logic of the situation has obliged the historians, after they had apparently rejected the divine authority of the kings and the ‘fate’ of the ancients, to reach the same conclusion by another road, that is, to recognize (1) nations guided by individual men, and (2) the existence of a known aim to which these nations and humanity at large are tending. In historical events (where the actions of 5 men are the subject of observation) the first and most primitive approximation to present itself was the will of the gods and, after that, the will of those who stood in the most prominent position – the heroes of history. But we need only penetrate to the essence of any historic event – which lies in the activity of the general mass of men who take part in it – to be convinced that the will of the historic hero does not control the actions of the mass but is itself continually controlled. 10
II
The thing itself is made present before us by an exercise of creative power as genuine as that of Nature herself ... whatever be the cause, the fact is so. Poetry has this life-giving power, and prose has it not; and thus the poet is the truest historian. Whatever is properly valuable in history the poet gives us – not events and names, but emotion, but action, but life. He is the heart of his age, and his verse expresses his age. 15
III
Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has originated! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more
peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the 20 commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power – they were more complete men (which at every point also implies the same as ‘more complete beasts’).
IV
If we are to draw any useful lines of demarcation in the continuous flux of history we must not scruple to say that, in the realm of knowledge and thought, modern history begins in the seventeenth century. Ubiquitous rebellion against tradition, a new standard of clear and precise thought which affects even literary expression, a flow of mathematical and physical discoveries so rapid that ten years added more to the sum of knowledge than all that had been added since the days of Archimedes, the introduction of organised co-operation to increase knowledge – characterise the opening of a new era.

1. Which passage is least concerned with the causes of history? 


Why is the correct answer Passage IV. I am thinking it’s Passage II because it’s the passage that talks about how a poet describes history. Passage IV says that modern history began with a “ubiquitous rebellion against tradition”; therefore it’s referring to the origins of modern history, and would likely define the origins of historical periods by their separation from tradition. Why do they say it’s Passage IV then?
Last edited by freestyler01; 2 months ago
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 2 months ago
#4
It is concerned with knowledge, which is only one aspect of history and is not necessarily causal.

In II the poet is a historical creative power, viz., a cause.
Last edited by gjd800; 2 months ago
0
reply
freestyler01
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by gjd800)
It is concerned with knowledge, which is only one aspect of history and is not necessarily causal.

In II the poet is a historical creative power, viz., a cause.
A historical creative power, but he is not the cause for history. He is only a portrayer of history. Passage I says that the main cause for historical events are the people, and Passage III that the main cause is the barbarity of men. Passage II is saying poets give life to history through their writing, but doesn't say they are the cause of historical events. There is a stark contrast between Passage II and PassageI&III. Passage IV on the other hand, says modern history began with an influx of knowledge, therefore it is concerned with the cause/beginning of modern history.
Last edited by freestyler01; 1 month ago
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by freestyler01)
A historical creative power, but he is not the cause for history. He is only a portrayer of history. Passage I says that the main cause for historical events are the people, and Passage III that the main cause is the barbarity of men. Passage II is saying poets give life to history through their writing, but doesn't say they are the cause of historical events. There is a stark contrast between Passage II and PassageI&III. Passage IV on the other hand, says modern history began with an influx of knowledge, therefore it is concerned with the cause/beginning of modern history.
The passage literally says a poet is a life giving, historical source. It equivocates the creative process of a poet with 'Nature itself'. This means that if Nature is a cause (and of course, it is) then so too is the poet, in virtue of their creative powers.

The one you think is correct is only concerned with knowledge, and then only from C17. Modern history =/= 'history'. So it is obviously to be discounted

It matters not if you agree with the logic of the passages, only that you can recognise and parse it
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How would you describe the quality of the digital skills you're taught at school?

Excellent (7)
9.09%
Okay (25)
32.47%
A bit lacking (22)
28.57%
Not good at all (23)
29.87%

Watched Threads

View All