BrightBlueStar11
Badges: 11
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 1 month ago
#1
Why is the answer not B and C??
The UK Department of Education is encouraging pupils aged 14 to 18 to learn poetry by heart in order to recite it at a new national competition. This government initiative is designed to
boost the confidence of young people and increase their awareness of poetry. By taking part in this initiative and by reciting poetry, young people will improve their appreciation of poetry.

Which one of the following identifies a flaw in the above argument?
A Young people are already aware of poetry.
B You don’t have to recite poetry to appreciate it.
C Awareness is not the same as appreciation.
D The young people who are willing to recite poetry are already confident.
E Learning something in order to recite it is not the same as being creative yourself.
Last edited by BrightBlueStar11; 1 month ago
0
reply
username5843598
Badges: 6
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 1 month ago
#2
This may be soo wrong but the way I see it is the government "designed" this initiative (so it was their intention) to raise awareness for poetry. But it goes on to say the initiative "will" (what they believe the outcome of the intention is) increase appreciation of poetry. Therefore, the flaw in the plan is that even of you gain an awareness of poetry (the intention) you may not appreciate poetry more (the so-called definite outcome).

The reason why it isn't b is because the plan is not to make children appreciate poetry more but to raise their awareness of poetry - and the appreciation is just a benefit. As this is not the argument of the initiative it can't be a flaw.

So basically the argument is that an awareness of poetry will lead to an appreciation of poetry. The argument is not that reciting poetry leads to a greater appreciation (answer b) but that reciting poetry leads to a greater awareness, which is why b is wrong.

This probably just confused it more but look at what the intention is and what the outcome is and then because this is just an assumption this is the flaw in the argument
Last edited by username5843598; 1 month ago
2
reply
Tolgash
Badges: 19
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 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by alex.1)
This may be soo wrong but the way I see it is the government "designed" this initiative (so it was their intention) to raise awareness for poetry. But it goes on to say the initiative "will" (what they believe the outcome of the intention is) increase appreciation of poetry. Therefore, the flaw in the plan is that even of you gain an awareness of poetry (the intention) you may not appreciate poetry more (the so-called definite outcome).

The reason why it isn't b is because the plan is not to make children appreciate poetry more but to raise their awareness of poetry - and the appreciation is just a benefit. As this is not the argument of the initiative it can't be a flaw.

So basically the argument is that an awareness of poetry will lead to an appreciation of poetry. The argument is not that reciting poetry leads to a greater appreciation (answer b) but that reciting poetry leads to a greater awareness, which is why b is wrong.

This probably just confused it more but look at what the intention is and what the outcome is and then because this is just an assumption this is the flaw in the argument
You're pretty much spot on. The correct answer is option C.
0
reply
BrightBlueStar11
Badges: 11
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 Thread starter 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by alex.1)
This may be soo wrong but the way I see it is the government "designed" this initiative (so it was their intention) to raise awareness for poetry. But it goes on to say the initiative "will" (what they believe the outcome of the intention is) increase appreciation of poetry. Therefore, the flaw in the plan is that even of you gain an awareness of poetry (the intention) you may not appreciate poetry more (the so-called definite outcome).

The reason why it isn't b is because the plan is not to make children appreciate poetry more but to raise their awareness of poetry - and the appreciation is just a benefit. As this is not the argument of the initiative it can't be a flaw.

So basically the argument is that an awareness of poetry will lead to an appreciation of poetry. The argument is not that reciting poetry leads to a greater appreciation (answer b) but that reciting poetry leads to a greater awareness, which is why b is wrong.

This probably just confused it more but look at what the intention is and what the outcome is and then because this is just an assumption this is the flaw in the argument
wow thank you for your kind explanation - now I understand why the answer is C and not B, so thank you!

Can you please also explain this?:

Increasing attention is being paid to the environmental consequences of the plastic ‘single-use’
shopping bags provided to customers by supermarkets and other retailers. Not only does the
production of these bags represent a wasteful use of natural resources, but there are
also problems surrounding their disposal. For instance, the bags often end up as litter, and in
the marine environment, they kill many animals that become entangled in them or mistake
them for food. Numerous countries and individual cities have banned these bags, but experts
on the environmental impacts of products warn that no perfect alternative exists. Whether using
fabric or heavier plastic, manufacturing bags that are stronger and thus more reusable requires
significantly greater quantities of natural resources than the vilified ‘single-use’ ones.

Which one of the following is a conclusion that can be drawn from the above passage?
A Encouraging consumers to change their behaviour is not an effective solution to
environmental problems.
B Product bans are never an effective solution to environmental problems.
C The solution to environmental problems lies in limiting human population growth.
D Recycled paper bags should be used instead of plastic bags.
E When comparing two products from an environmental standpoint, it is important to
consider their manufacturing processes, length of use, and disposal.
0
reply
BrightBlueStar11
Badges: 11
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
Can anyone also help me with this question?

So, when identifying an assumption, they say it is preferable to find the main conclusion and its supporting reasoning behind it - however, wouldn't it be much easier to just find a sentence that jumps too much logically and think about any stepping stones to make it reasonable?

"Political legitimacy, the moral right to use state power, can only be derived from the consent of the governed. So, in democracies that uphold this principle, regular elections are held to ensure that political power is legitimate. Therefore, in these cases, the more voters participate in elections, the more legitimate the democratic political system is."

Which one of the following is an assumption underlying the above argument?
A Electoral turnout is always higher in democratic political systems.
B Voting at elections implies consent to the political system as a whole.
C There is always a need for a government.
D The more people who vote, the more the common interests are met.
E Non-democratic political systems rely on coercion as a basis of state power.
0
reply
username5843598
Badges: 6
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 BrightBlueStar11)
wow thank you for your kind explanation - now I understand why the answer is C and not B, so thank you!

Can you please also explain this?:

Increasing attention is being paid to the environmental consequences of the plastic ‘single-use’
shopping bags provided to customers by supermarkets and other retailers. Not only does the
production of these bags represent a wasteful use of natural resources, but there are
also problems surrounding their disposal. For instance, the bags often end up as litter, and in
the marine environment, they kill many animals that become entangled in them or mistake
them for food. Numerous countries and individual cities have banned these bags, but experts
on the environmental impacts of products warn that no perfect alternative exists. Whether using
fabric or heavier plastic, manufacturing bags that are stronger and thus more reusable requires
significantly greater quantities of natural resources than the vilified ‘single-use’ ones.

Which one of the following is a conclusion that can be drawn from the above passage?
A Encouraging consumers to change their behaviour is not an effective solution to
environmental problems.
B Product bans are never an effective solution to environmental problems.
C The solution to environmental problems lies in limiting human population growth.
D Recycled paper bags should be used instead of plastic bags.
E When comparing two products from an environmental standpoint, it is important to
consider their manufacturing processes, length of use, and disposal.
So I am fairly certain that it is E.

So it can't be a or b because the passage doesn't mention anything about consumers, changing their habits, or banning products.
Similarly it can't be c because the passage doesn't mention population group. D contradicts the passage as it says paper bags should be used whereas the passage talks about the problems of using other materials to make bags.

Therefore, it must be e because the passage does compare two products, mentions manufacturing processes and talks about length of use.
0
reply
username5843598
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by BrightBlueStar11)
Can anyone also help me with this question?

So, when identifying an assumption, they say it is preferable to find the main conclusion and its supporting reasoning behind it - however, wouldn't it be much easier to just find a sentence that jumps too much logically and think about any stepping stones to make it reasonable?

"Political legitimacy, the moral right to use state power, can only be derived from the consent of the governed. So, in democracies that uphold this principle, regular elections are held to ensure that political power is legitimate. Therefore, in these cases, the more voters participate in elections, the more legitimate the democratic political system is."

Which one of the following is an assumption underlying the above argument?
A Electoral turnout is always higher in democratic political systems.
B Voting at elections implies consent to the political system as a whole.
C There is always a need for a government.
D The more people who vote, the more the common interests are met.
E Non-democratic political systems rely on coercion as a basis of state power.
Personally, I would say the easiest way to do it is to identify the argument of the passage then work out the assumption. In theory you way could work, but working back is perhaps more difficult and you may miss what the argument actually is!!

So the argument is that because a government can only be legitimate if the people agree, the more people who vote the more lawful the government is.

A doesn't talk about legitimacy or consent from the people so can't be A. With C, again nothing about people voting or who legitimate the government is. At first glance it could be D, but even if the government supports the common interest of the people, they can't be legitimate if people didn't have a free choice in an election. Then the passage doesn't talk about non-democratic systems so can't be E.

Therefore you're left with B. The argument is that people voting means that the people agree with the government and therefore the government is legitimate. But say people were forced to vote, the people wouldn't freely consent to the political system, so the government wouldn;t be legitimate.
0
reply
BrightBlueStar11
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#8
Is the answer C an example of "correlation vs causation" and thus is incorrect?

Also, can anyone explain why option E is also incorrect?

Crazy as it seems, it looks as if lead poisoning could be the major cause of the rise and fall of
violent crime. Lead is so toxic that it is unsafe at any level and in Europe it has been banned
from many products, including paint and petrol, since the 1990s. Lead poisoning in infancy,
even at very low levels, impairs the development of those parts of the brain that regulate
behaviour and mood. The effect is stronger in boys than in girls. Lead poisoning is associated
with attention deficit disorder, impulsiveness, aggression and, some think, psychopathy.
Studies between cities, states and nations show that the rise and fall in violent crime follows,
with a roughly 20-year lag, the rise and fall in the exposure of infants to trace quantities of lead.
Virtually all studies agree there is a strong correlation.

Which one of the following could be drawn as a conclusion from the above passage?
A European countries could soon expect to see a fall in levels of violent crime.
B Possible causes of violent crime such as poor social conditions and drugs can now be
discounted.
C If lead in petrol and paint is banned worldwide, violent crime will become almost unknown.
D Countries with less commitment to safety standards will be reluctant to ban lead from
products.
E Boys who are exposed to lead in infancy are highly likely to go on to commit violent crimes in their early twenties.
Last edited by BrightBlueStar11; 1 month 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.
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by BrightBlueStar11)
Is the answer C an example of "correlation vs causation" and thus is incorrect?

Also, can anyone explain why option E is also incorrect?

Crazy as it seems, it looks as if lead poisoning could be the major cause of the rise and fall of
violent crime. Lead is so toxic that it is unsafe at any level and in Europe it has been banned
from many products, including paint and petrol, since the 1990s. Lead poisoning in infancy,
even at very low levels, impairs the development of those parts of the brain that regulate
behaviour and mood. The effect is stronger in boys than in girls. Lead poisoning is associated
with attention deficit disorder, impulsiveness, aggression and, some think, psychopathy.
Studies between cities, states and nations show that the rise and fall in violent crime follows,
with a roughly 20-year lag, the rise and fall in the exposure of infants to trace quantities of lead.
Virtually all studies agree there is a strong correlation.

Which one of the following could be drawn as a conclusion from the above passage?
A European countries could soon expect to see a fall in levels of violent crime.
B Possible causes of violent crime such as poor social conditions and drugs can now be
discounted.
C If lead in petrol and paint is banned worldwide, violent crime will become almost unknown.
D Countries with less commitment to safety standards will be reluctant to ban lead from
products.
E Boys who are exposed to lead in infancy are highly likely to go on to commit violent crimes in their early twenties.
Hi, you're posting a very large number of these questions now, and have been for a few weeks. To which qualification/test do these questions relate?

I agree with alex.1 with his previous answers.
0
reply
BrightBlueStar11
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by Reality Check)
Hi, you're posting a very large number of these questions now, and have been for a few weeks. To which qualification/test do these questions relate?

I agree with alex.1 with his previous answers.
Oh didn't realise I was posting on the same thread

this is related to BMAT, so I am preparing the critical thinking (which is my weakness) and I want to see if my reasoning is valid by seeing if there logic parallels mine
0
reply
ashtolga23
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
I mean I've never seen a question like this in all honesty but I think my starting point would be:

A and D are ruled out automatically because they make assumptions. E talks about creativity, but creativity was never mentioned as an objective. I see the argument for B, and I'm almost surprised that there's only one right answer, but having seen that this is for critical thinking I'd imagine the correct answer is C because it draws on the difference in definitions. The flaw in the logic comes in because while this may increase awareness, it does not follow to say it will increase appreciation. While B is probably true, it's more subjective than C, which attacks the root of the problem.

That would be my thinking for the original question. Figured I might as well spell out how you might want to approach the questions from my limited knowledge.
Last edited by ashtolga23; 1 month ago
0
reply
BrightBlueStar11
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#12
So, if the main principle of the question is that "if the system does not benefit everyone, it should not be publicly funded"

Then, would this option be wrong: "Primary and secondary education provides an economic benefit to the whole country, so public funds should be used to support schools"?

Because of the law:

"A --> B" do not necessarily mean "no A --> no B"
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 (35)
9.78%
Okay (106)
29.61%
A bit lacking (130)
36.31%
Not good at all (87)
24.3%

Watched Threads

View All