答案解析
Prep2012-Pack1-CR-056 VCR000727 Hard
Reasoning
Given the facts the vendor has stated, what would make it less likely that the vendor could break even running a pretzel stand outside the museum? The vendor says that to break even, it would be necessary to sell more pretzels per hour outside the art museum than outside city hall. Therefore, look for an answer choice suggesting that the vendor could not sell that many pretzels outside the art museum. To strengthen the argument, the correct answer must present evidence that goes beyond what the vendor has already stated.
A. A license fee outside city hall would not affect the vendor's need or ability to sell 25 pretzels an hour outside the art museum to break even.
B. If vendors were making a profit before the license fee was imposed, there might be enough demand for pretzels to allow a profit even with the license fee
C. Fewer pretzel stands outside the art museum would mean less competition. Therefore, it might be easier for the vendor to make a profit.
D. Even if many more people buy pretzels while the museum is open than when it's closed, the vendor might still sell at least 25 pretzels an hour, on average, whether it's open or closed.
E. Correct. If the vendor only sells 15 pretzels an hour outside city hall, and fewer people want pretzels outside the art museum than outside city hall, then it would be hard for the vendor to sell 25 pretzels an hour outside the art museum.
The correct answer is E.
Prep2012-Pack1-CR-057 VCR000738 Hard
Reasoning
What conclusion does the information suggest about cities in general? The information suggests that in cities, a population decline tends to reduce overall revenues that fund city services without reducing the need for two specific services: police protection and water fines. It also says that raising tax rates causes further population declines and does not raise revenues. But we are not told how overall revenues are distributed among city services, nor how the distribution might change. Even if overall funds decline, revenues for some specific city services could remain the same, while revenues for other services are severely cut.
A. Correct. If police protection and water fines have not deteriorated as population has declined, then probably the funding for them has been preserved. Therefore, funding for some other services must be severely cut, since (as the argument states) making up tax revenue lost due to population decreases is not feasible.
B. Although increased tax rates cause population declines, a city's population and total tax revenue may for other reasons even if tax rates are stable.
C. No specific information is given about how other city services would be affected by population declines. Therefore, we have no basis on which to compare any resulting deterioration to that of police protection and water fines.
D. We are told that raising tax rates in a city with declining revenues does not increase revenues, and none of the information given suggests any exceptions to this principle.
E. Reducing high tax rates to moderate levels may not attract many new residents, since other cities may have moderate tax rates as well; furthermore, those other cities may have better city services or other more attractive features.
The correct answer is A.Prep2012-Pack1-CR-058 VCR000905 Hard
Reasoning
What must be true in order for the given premises to justify the conclusion that the broken hul did not sink the ship?
The ship wrecked in a storm. If the hull was in separate pieces during the storm, the waves would have made the pieces drift apart. But the two pieces of the hull were found close together. Therefore, the argument concludes that the hull must not have been in separate pieces when the ship sank. This assumes that since the two pieces of the hull were found together, the storm waves never made them drift apart.
A. This need not be true for the premises to justify the conclusion. It is perfectly compatible with the argument that large ships often sink in calm weather for example, due to factors such as icebergs or naval battles.
B. Correct. The argument assumes that the pieces of the hull never drifted apart in the first place and hence that underwater currents did not move them back together again.
C. If the pieces of the hull had sunk quickly, they would have had little time to drift apart. Therefore, they might have been found together even if the ship's hull had broken in the storm.
D. Even if the waves had been violent enough to potentially break up the ship, they might not actually have done so. For instance, the ship may have sunk before the waves were able to break it up.
E. As in C, if the pieces of the hull had not remained on the surface for long, they would have had little time to drift apart.
The correct answer is B.
