Question of the day CR : SOLUTION

"POOR WORKING CONDITION" QUESTION

1.  It is mistaken to attribute Zanco's failure; to the publicity about the supposedly inhuman working conditions~in the foreign factories that furnish Zanco with many of its parts. Zanco's failure has more to do with defects in its products than with any boycott on moral grounds. After all, plenty of other companies are supplied by factories with working conditions just as bad as those in Zanco's suppliers, and the public does not hesitate to buy their products.

The argument in the passage is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A)   People are unlikely to let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase.

(B)    People who patronize companies supplied by factories where working conditions are as bad as those of Zanco's suppliers are aware of those conditions.

(C)   The working conditions in the factories that supply Zanco with parts are not as bad as has been claimed.

(D)   Zanco's sales did not dip sharply after the poor working conditions in its suppliers' factories became known.

(E)    The poor quality of Zanco's products is not a result of the working conditions in the foreign factories where its parts are manufactured.

SOLUTION

Sometimes certain keywords are very important in the question statement. Here as well there is one word in question stimulus that holds the key to the answer. we shall find out what it is.

Before that lets decode the stimulus jargon.:-

"it is said that it was a mistake to say that zanco's sales dipped because  people came to know that unethical working conditions exist in many of zancos supplier factories. Rather the reason for dip in sale is poor product quality.Now comes the evidence which has been given to support above assertion. The evidence is that --even with other companies where suppliers maintain equally bad working conditions, the sales have not been affected"

lets now define our task- we have to look for that one fact that has been assumed by the author in making the above argument. NOW what is the argument. "argument here that dip in sale is not caused by publicity about poor working condition and in past companies with similar suppliers were unaffected".

Now lets look at options one by one-

OPTION A- initially looks like a strong option... if people do not let moral issues factor in while making purchases that clearly means zancos sales dip is clearly not caused by poor working conditions " lets keep it as a probable ans.

OPTIONB- HMM... it says people who bought goods of these other companies{ ( given as evidence) which had similar immoral suppliers} did actually knew about these conditions. This is one assumption which really needs to be made because in the question statement, it is said that "publicity" of poor working conditions has not caused the sales dip.so when we look at the evidence part it becomes important to know if such poor working conditions were known to customers or not. This option is an assumption that ppl knew n still the sales were unaffected in there other companies.

option A only carries weight when we know that ppl in past also knew... so it might look strong but is actually one step further from correct answer. so lets eliminate A...till now B IS  best answer.

OPTION C- IF this is true than there is no correlation between the evidence provided and the case of zanco. Falsifies the relation drawn in the stimulus.

OPTION D- again a very strong probable answer but if we look carefully , it is only reiterating what is written in the question-' that sales did not dip as result of publicity  of poor working conditions" . Remember ASSUMPTION is always a extra pc of info not explicitly written out in the stimulus but it is there in authors head which he sketches the argument. BY this logic this option cannot be considered an assumption. I will still go with B.

OPTION E- THIS is clearly deviating the argument.

Hence answer is option B

{IMP NOTE: . The assertion that Zanco's failure is not due to publicity about poor working conditions in its suppliers' factories only makes sense if those who buy the products of those other companies are aware of the bad working conditions in their suppliers' factories. After all, if people bought products from the other companies without knowing that they too were supplied by sweatshop-style factories, the comparison would be moot and the logic of the argument would go down the drain. The scope shift centers around the word "publicity." The conclusion that Zanco's failure was not due to publicity about bad working conditions is backed up by evidence concerning companies with bad working conditions that says nothing about publicity. Publicity is a key feature of the conclusion, but drops off the map in the evidence, and therein lies the scope shift and the necessity of (B), the correct answer.}

Concept of the day (SC) PARTICIPLES

The Participle

Participles come in two varieties: past and present. They are two of the five forms or principal parts that every verb has. Look at the charts below.

Regular Verbs:

 Simple Present :       giggle(s)       help(s)
 Simple Past :             giggled         helped
 Past Participle:         giggled         helped
 Present Participle:   giggling       helping
 Infinitive:                  to giggle       to help
   
Irregular Verbs:

Simple Present               ring(s)            swim(s)  
Simple Past                    rang                swam
Past Participle               rung                swum
 Present Participle         ringing           swimming
 Infinitive                       to ring             to swim

Notice that each present participle ends in ing.
On the other hand, you can see that past participles do not have a consistent ending. The past participles of all regular verbs end in ed; the past participles of irregular verbs, however, vary considerably. If you look at bring and sing, for example, you'll see that their past participles—brought and sung—do not follow the same pattern even though both verbs have ing as the last three letters.

Know the functions of participles.

Participles have three functions in sentences. They can be components of multipart verbs, or they can function as adjectives or nouns.

Participles in Multipart Verbs
A verb can have as many as four parts. When you form multipart verbs, you use a combination of auxiliary verbs and participles. Look at the examples below:

• Our pet alligator ate Mrs. Olsen's poodle.

Ate = simple past tense [no participle].

• With a broom, Mrs. Olsen was beating our alligator over the head in an attempt to retrieve her poodle.

Was = auxiliary verb; beating = present participle.

• Our pet alligator has been stalking neighborhood pets because my brother Billy forgets to feed the poor reptile.

Has = auxiliary verb; been = past participle; stalking = present participle.

• Our pet alligator should have been eating Gator Chow, crunchy nuggets that Billy leaves for him in a bowl.

Should, have = auxiliary verbs; been = past participle; eating = present participle.

Participles as Adjectives
Past and present participles often function as adjectives that describe nouns.
Here are some examples:

• The crying baby drew a long breath and sucked in a spider crouching in the corner of the crib.

Which baby? The crying baby. Which spider? The one that was crouching in the corner.

• The mangled pair of sunglasses, bruised face, broken arm, and bleeding knees meant Genette had taken another spill on her mountain bike.

Which pair of sunglasses? The mangled pair. Which face? The bruised one. Which arm? The broken one. Which knees? The bleeding ones.

Participles as Nouns
Present participles can function as nouns—the subjects, direct objects, indirect objects, objects of prepositions, and subject complements in sentences. Whenever a present participle functions as a noun, you call it a gerund.
Take a look at these examples:

• Sneezing exhausts Steve, who requires eight tissues and twenty-seven Gesundheits before he is done.

Sneezing = the subject of the verb exhausts.

• Valerie hates cooking because scraping burnt gook out of pans always undermines her enjoyment of the food.

Cooking = the direct object of the verb hates.

• We gave bungee jumping a chance.

Bungee jumping = indirect object of the verb gave.

• Joelle bit her tongue instead of criticizing her prom date's powder blue tuxedo.

Criticizing = object of the preposition instead of.

• Omar's least favorite sport is water-skiing because a bad spill once caused him to lose his swim trunks.

Water-skiing = the subject complement of the verb is.

Clever Wordplay in CR questions.

Clever Wordplay
Many Critical Reasoning problems are tricky primarily because people gloss over
subtle differences in meaning between an idea expressed in the stimulus and a
concept provided in an answer choice. With so many details in each question and so
many questions in rapid succession, this tendency is certainly understandable, but not
forgivable—at least not once you have been exposed to this commonly used trick!
Consider two examples:

example 1. Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under

routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison

early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases

they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals

arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for

routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine

supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine

supervision, were required to work or attend school during their

supervision period.

(B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision

had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put

under supervision.

(C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly

higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under

routine supervision.

(D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some

would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine

supervision.

(E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not

significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive

supervision.

In the  example , the clever wordplay is the important difference between

“committing a crime” and “being arrested.” Data about “being arrested” is not the same

as data about “committing a crime.” You could have been arrested 50 times and not

once have committed a crime. If 100 people were arrested in each group and then

you claim “Intensive supervision is not any better than routine supervision at keeping

people from COMMITTING crimes,” that is flawed. What if 80 of the 100 people in the

intensive group were actually committing crimes and only 20 of the 100 people in the

routine group were? That would show that indeed intensive supervision is much better

at keeping people from committing crimes. Correct answer choice C eliminates that

possibility and greatly improves the quality of the argument. With Critical Reasoning

questions, you must be on the constant lookout for subtle meaning differences,

as many questions hinge on this type of wordplay.