New Batches at TathaGat Delhi & Noida!               Directions to CP centre
Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Dagny Taggart - Thursday, 15 May 2008, 09:21 AM
   

 

online cat 2008 cat 2009 cat coaching delhi critical reasoningTG and I have these long discussions over almost everything. These discussions generally take place either when we go out for our long evening walkds or when we are cooking or enjoying our wine at Pizza Express. This time it was cooking.

TG (probably thinking about a mathematical problem): “What are we preparing for lunch today?”

Now that I want to have this discussion with him, it’s very important that I suggest his favourite dish only.

“Aaloo Gobhi, Matar, Zeera Pulao, Pudina Chutney and Cold Ribbon Pasta Salad.”

TG is smiling now. “Aah tempting! Are you trapping me into something?”

“Umm… actually, I have forgotten many things related to critical reasoning and TGites have long been asking us to write an article. So I thought may be we could discuss it first!”

TG smiles and nods his head. I knew he would never be able to say no, now that we are talking about cooking his favourite dish. Ha! I like these traps. winkwink

TG and I head to the kitchen to pick up vegetables and fruits for chopping. He picks up potatoes, onions, ginger, peas, green chillies, coriander leaves, cauliflower, and tomatoes. I open the fridge and take out cabbage, pineapple can, pomegranate, apples, boiled potatoes, bell peppers, olives, and strawberries for cold salad.

TG: “Hmm, so what is an argument?”

ME (placing the bowl containing pasta on the gas for boiling)- An argument is a sequence of two or more phrases, clauses, sentences or statements, one of which is a claim or conclusion, which follows the premise. The simplest kind of argument consists of one premise and a conclusion. An example could be ‘No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as a theory.’

TG- So the premise in your example is ‘No one was present when life first appeared on Earth.’ And the conclusion is ‘Any statement about life’s origins should be considered as a theory.’ In an argument some claims are put forward in support of others. The claim that is being supported is the conclusion. The claims that are alleged to support the conclusion are the premises. In simple words, premises are the facts or evidence that support or lead to the conclusion. In your example there was a cue word ‘therefore’ that made it easier for me to separate the premise from the conclusion. Conclusion can be preceded by cue words such as thus, hence, so and therefore. And cue words such as if, given that, suppose, for, since and because signal the presence of evidence and reasons in support of a fact. It is not necessary that conclusion will always be followed by premises. In some cases conclusion of the argument may come first. For example, Forbear to judge, for we are sinners all.

ME- Hmm..

We move back to the dining room with our chopping boards, bowls, and knives along with the eatables.

ME (chop-chop) - Let me classify the arguments. There are two types of arguments- deductive and inductive. When an argument claims that the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion, it is said to involve a deductive argument. Deductive reasoning holds to a very high standard of correctness. A deductive argument is valid when, if its premise is true, conclusion must be true. In deductive argument the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. For example, ‘All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.’ When an argument claims merely that the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true, it is said to involve an inductive inference. An inductive argument is one whose premises are meant to show that the conclusion is probably true. For example, ‘It has snowed in Himachal every year in recorded history. Therefore, it will snow in Himachal this coming year.’

TG (with watery eyes, chopping onions)- We will check the inference part from the Fact-Inference- Judgement chapter. For students, here is the link- http://totalgadha.com/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=214

ME- I think pasta must be done. Be right back.

I go back to the kitchen to check whether the pasta was boiled. I strain the extra water, run cold water on it and add a table spoon of oil so that each ribbon stays separate and doesn’t get sticky. I soak the rice quickly in water for Pulao and leave the kitchen.

TG- Is it ready?

ME- Yeah! Okay the last definition. What is an assumption?

TG (Don’t know how does he chop and grate these vegetables so finely!) -  An assumption bridges the gap between an argument's evidence and conclusion. It's a piece of support that isn't explicitly stated but that is required for the conclusion to remain valid. It is an unstated premise that supports the author's conclusion.

Henry plays basketball for his college. Therefore, Henry must be over six feet tall.

Here you are assuming that all the basket ball players are over six feet tall.

Me- Also, assumption provides additional premises needed to draw the conclusion and the assumptions take that the premises in an argument can actually be true. For the ‘Evaluation of the argument’ part, I think we will give the link of the Fallacies chapter and I remember most of it so let’s just directly move to the types of questions. http://totalgadha.com/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=2694

TG- But before that let me ask you something. Consider this example.

Painting classes take place on Mondays. Today is Monday. Therefore, painting classes take place today. Now tell me, is the conclusion correct?

ME - Yes.

TG– Wrong (my jaw drops!) Let us analyse the premise (1) If we assume that painting classes usually take place on Monday, then there is a probability that if today is Monday it will be one of those Mondays when painting classes take place, but this is obviously not certain. Premise 1 does not state that painting classes take place every Monday; classes could be held every other Monday or every fourth Monday. Therefore, the conclusion may be wrong.

ME– Let me conclude. Assumptions are premises that are accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. Inferences are unstated partial conclusions that can be drawn from the given premises. And conclusions are judgments or decisions reached on the basis of the premise/s. An example would be

TG is a student of IIT Delhi.
Therefore TG is intelligent.

Here Premise- TG is a student of IIT Delhi. Conclusion- TG is intelligent.
Assumption- All IIT Delhi students are intelligent.

TG looks at me from the corner of his eyes.

ME-  But what is the difference between assumption and inference and conclusion and inference?

TG- An inference is an additional observation in the line of reasoning but is not the same as a conclusion. A conclusion invariably addresses the central idea of a thought stimulus whereas an inference serves only to support the conclusion. The difference between assumption and inference is that the validity of the conclusion does not depend on inference as it depends on the assumption. Hmmm (thinking) example Students who drink at least two glasses of milk everyday tend to be more active than those who don’t drink two glasses of milk in a day. The ability to get a good score in any competitive exam depends on one’s level of activeness. So what do you infer and conclude from this?

ME:  Inference-If you are a student you are likely to be more active if you drink two glasses of milk. Conclusion- Students wishing to do well in competitive exams should try to drink at least two glasses of milk daily to stay active during the exams. Got it!

We completed the chopping part and moved to the kitchen to start our cooking. I take a glass bowl, add mayonnaise, and pass it on to TG while he heats the oil for Aaloo Gobhi. TG adds pasta, fruits, and vegetables, just the right amount of salt and freshly grounded pepper in mayo and mixes them cautiously. While I add potatoes, ginger, green chillies, cauliflower, tomatoes, grated ginger, coriander leaves, salt, red chilli powder, and turmeric. I simmer the gas, cover the vegetables with a lid, and let it cook.

TG (looking pleased while decorating his salad with strawberries and mint leaves) - The major types of questions are find an assumption, draw a conclusion, weaken the conclusion, strengthen the conclusion and analyse the argument structure.

ME- What about the inferential questions?

TG- Restate the conclusion, mimic the argument, make an inference about the premise, resolve a problem, explain an event or a discrepancy, provide an example are all minor types of questions. We also look for boundary and extreme words while solving CR.

ME (heating the oil for pulao) - Boundary words narrow the scope of the argument. For example, The percentage of CAT takers are increasing in India. In this statement, the boundary words are percentage, CAT takers, and India. The word percentage restricts the meaning to percentage only as opposed to the actual CAT takers. (it is not necessary that if the percentage has increased that the actual number has also increased.) The word CAT takers also limits the scope of the premise, it restricts the meaning to the CAT takers only as opposed to the people who take rest of MBA entrance exams as well. Extreme words are essentially opposite of boundary words. Extreme words open the argument unreasonably. The good questions in CR will always have moderate options. All, always, never, only etc are a few such words. For example, ‘everyone who has weak eyesight always wear specs.’

The extreme word ‘always’ unreasonably opens the scope of the argument. The more reasonable argument would have been that People with weak eyesight usually wear specs. Also, the extreme work everyone is also unnecessarily opening the argument further. The more reasonable argument would have been ‘most people who have weak eyesight wear specs.’

Invariably, the biggest thumb rule in solving a CR question is to read the question correctly. It is important to dissect the argument before moving on to the question because many a times the options will have seemingly ‘correct’ wrong answers. Dissecting the argument beforehand prevents you from going wrong. Identify to identify the premises, conclusion and assumptions (if any) in the argument and try to guess the answers before moving on to the options.

TG puts the salad in refrigerator and takes out mint leaves for Pudina Chutney. Aaloo Gobhi is ready, I add freshly grounded garam masala, close the lid, and turn off the gas. I add khada masala, zeera, sliced onions, and dry red chillies in the oil along with salt and wait for the onions to turn brownish.

TG (taking out the hand-grinder from the cupboard) – Good. There are also these ‘except’ kind of questions. ‘Each of the following strengthen/weaken the conclusion except’ or ‘Each of the following makes the argument logically correct except’ or ‘Each of the following helps to explain event X except’. (TG stopped speaking and I knew he hasn’t finished…)

He adds mint leaves, salt, onion, grounded pomegranate seeds and starts the grinder. Tangy! The onions have turned brown, I add water and peas to the contents, cover the container with the lid and wait for the water to boil.

TG (looking happy)- See, just the right colour of green. (I look and smile and he speaks again) If you closely inspect the phrases then they mean the same as ‘which of the following does not weaken or strengthen the conclusion or which of the following does not make the argument logically correct or which of the following does not help to explain the event X.

Phew! Agree! Its 1 p.m and we have almost an hour before lunch so we decide to solve some questions. I quickly add the rice to the water, simmer the gas and close the lid. TG prepares his special Elachi tea for both of us and we go to the living room.

TG (leaning back on the couch comfortably searching something in the laptop) – Let’s solve this question.

To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service. One such official concluded, however, that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.
The official’s conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.
B. Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials.
C. Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.
D. High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists.
E. High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.

We stare a question for a while and I answer first.

ME- Is the answers D?

TG- Correct! Approach?

ME- I kept the conclusion in my mind because an assumption has to be closely tied to the conclusion.  Here the conclusion is ‘that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.’  What I roughly thought was that if they cannot earn their lively hood for three years as we know from the official statement, it means that they cannot earn their lively hood in any other way but by being lobbyists. Among all the 5 options, only D is the prefect choice because it logically fills the gap between the premise and a conclusion.

TG- (scribbling something on the scribble pad) Hmmm correct. Did you notice the words Congress- prohibit-high-level government officials -from earning a livelihood for three years? (Whew!). Questions on assumptions can be phrased in many ways. 1) Which of the following most accurately states a hidden assumption that the author must make in order to advance the argument above? 2) The argument above assumes which of the following? 3) Which of the following is an assumption that, if true, would support the conclusion in the passage above? In assumption type of questions, follow this routine:

·          Identify the Conclusion and the evidence
·          Ask if the conclusion follows from the evidence?
·          Check if you need some missing evidence to support the conclusion.
·          Apply the denial test. If the given option is removed or falsified then the conclusion is invalid.

TG- Another Question:

A computer equipped with signature-recognition software, which restricts access to a computer to those people whose signatures are on file, identifies a person’s signature by analyzing not only the form of the signature but also such characteristics as pen pressure and signing speed. Even the most adept forgers cannot duplicate all of the characteristics the program analyzes.
Which of the following can be logically concluded from the passage above?

(A) The time it takes to record and analyze a signature makes the software impractical for everyday use.
(B) Computers equipped with the software will soon be installed in most banks.
(C) Nobody can gain access to a computer equipped with the software solely by virtue of skill at forging signatures.
(D) Signature-recognition software has taken many years to develop and perfect.
(E) In many cases even authorized users are denied legitimate access to computers equipped with the software.

TG quickly reads the question and starts writing something again, I solved the question sipping tea from the mug.

ME- C?  (TG nodding in affirmation and we discuss my approach) Premise 1: A computer equipped with signature-recognition software identifies a person’s signature by analyzing not only the form of the signature but also such characteristics as pen pressure and signing speed.

Premise 2: Even the most adept forgers cannot duplicate all of the characteristics the program analyzes. (It means that even if you have a skill to forage the signatures, you would not be able to gain an access because the software needs to identify your signature.)

Here I worked with the options keeping in mind that I don’t have to go beyond the premise. Option A and D look out of the context of the passage because the passage gives no information about how fast the software operates or about how long the software was under development. Option B- where did banks come from? Option E is wrong because no such information given about the errors of that sort (too distant from the mentioned premise). Option C looks best because it summarizes the premises.

TG- Let’s move on to strengthen/ weaken the conclusion types of questions.

I suddenly realized that the pulao must be ready and I rush to the kitchen. I open the lid to check and the rich aroma of cloves, cinnamon, zeera, peas mixed with rice enriched the senses. I put off the flame, covered the rice with the lid, and back to discussion!

TG - The average life expectancy for the United States population as a whole is 73.9 years, but children born in Hawaii will live an average of 77 years, and those born in Louisiana, 71.7 years. If a newlywed couple from Louisiana were to begin their family in Hawaii, therefore, their children would be expected to live longer than would be the case if the family remained in Louisiana.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the conclusion drawn in the passage?

A. As population density increases in Hawaii, life expectancy figures for that state are likely to be revised downward.
B. Environmental factors tending to favour longevity are abundant in Hawaii and less numerous in Louisiana.
C. Twenty-five percent of all Louisianans who move to Hawaii live longer than 77 years.
D. Over the last decade, average life expectancy has risen at a higher rate for Louisianans than for Hawaiians.
E. Studies show that the average life expectancy for Hawaiians who move permanently to Louisiana is roughly equal to that of Hawaiians who remain in Hawaii.

ME- In simple words the conclusion is that people who live in Hawaii live longer than people who live in Louisiana and that is the reason that even if people living in Louisiana shift to Hawaii, they are expected to live longer. The main aim is to add a premise that would support the conclusion. I solved it by eliminating the options. Option A is weakening the conclusion because it says that life expectancy in Hawaii is likely to be falling. Option B strengthens the conclusion because the greater abundance of longevity-promoting environmental factors it mentions is probably at least partly responsible for the higher life expectancy in Hawaii. Children born in Hawaii benefit from these factors from birth, and thus Louisianans who have children in Hawaii increase their children’s chances of living longer. Option C talks about only 25% of the cases and option E weakens the argument. Option D does not support the argument as it talks about increased rate of lie expectancy in Louisiana rather than in Hawaii.

TG– (taking the last sip from his mug) another question. Same passage, different options, and different question.

The average life expectancy for the United States population as a whole is 73.9 years, but children born in Hawaii will live an average of 77 years, and those born in Louisiana, 71.7 years. If a newlywed couple from Louisiana were to begin their family in Hawaii, therefore, their children would be expected to live longer than would be the case if the family remained in Louisiana.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

A. Insurance company statisticians do not believe that moving to Hawaii will significantly lengthen the average Louisianan’s life.
B. The governor of Louisiana has falsely alleged that statistics for his state are inaccurate.
C. The longevity ascribed to Hawaii’s current population is attributable mostly to genetically determined factors.
D. Thirty percent of all Louisianans can expect to live longer than 77 years.
E. Most of the Hawaiian Islands have levels of air pollution well below the national average for the United States.

ME (this was tough!)-  Same conclusion, that people who live in Hawaii live longer than people who live in Louisiana and that is why if people living in Louisiana shift to Hawaii, they are expected to live longer. So basically I have to consider either two things either to find a faulty premise or find evidence that will belittle the conclusion. I work with eliminating the options. D does not guarantee that a Louisianan will not have a longer life in Hawaii. E is incorrect because it supports the conclusion. A is out of the context. Because the governor’s allegation is false, it cannot affect the conclusion so, B also eliminated.  Only option C weakens the argument because since the Louisianans’ children will acquire their genetic characteristics from their parents, not from their birthplace, this choice presents a reason to doubt that Hawaiian born children of native Louisianans will have an increased life expectancy.

We take a break from all the logic and go to the kitchen to serve lunch. I garnish Aaloo- Gobhi with freshly chopped coriander leaves, rice with sliced tomatoes and green chillies, Pudina Chutney with 2 mint leaves, and cold salad in a glass bowl with white base and different colours of green, red, yellow, black etc.  We sit down to enjoy our lunch and discuss easier topics like catching up a next movie and buying some books from the Oxford book store. After the gourmet lunch we move to the living room yet again, switch on the AC, and sit lazily on the couch. He compliments me for the good lunch.smile

ME- You were telling me about those minor types of questions?

TG- Yes, Many a times you come across questions where you have to explain an event (Which of the following statements, if true, would best explain the 1984 decrease in productivity?), find an Inference (If the statements above are all true, which of the following can properly be inferred on the basis of them?), evaluate the conclusion (Which of the following investigations is most likely to yield significant information that would help to evaluate the researcher’s hypothesis?) etc. But if you become comfortable at solving major types of questions, minor types come in handy. And the strategy or solving each CR question remains more or less the same.

Me- And the strategy is?

TG (mockingly)- Gadha Rules:

·          Look for particular types of questions, and then use the strategies appropriate for that type
         of question to choose the right answer. 

·          You can rephrase the text if you want and make things simpler for yourself.
·          Break the argument in premise and conclusion. Look for cue words if any.
·          Identify the argument.
·          Read the question carefully (know what you are looking for) and anticipate the answer
        yourself.

·          Focus on what the question is asking you to do and find an answer choice that best answers
         the question. That’s it.

·          Use the process of elimination.
·          Avoid the options containing extreme words.
·          Don’t go beyond the scope of the argument. If the passage tells you ‘The sun rises in the 
        East’, believe it.

·          Remember that there is only ONE correct answer and that is the best answer.

I think the chapter is more or less covered. Ah! Ek chai ho jaaye?


  
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Software Engineer - Thursday, 15 May 2008, 09:49 AM
  Ah! Ek chai ho jaaye?

Let's go to Mocha -
a coffee and hookah bar, exactly opposite to IIM, A'bad. smile (just 2 km from my office) hppt://www.mocha.co.in/ahemadabad.html

SE
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Ashaley Gadha - Thursday, 15 May 2008, 09:47 AM
  Thanks a lot maam for the beautifully phrased lesson..............Gained a lot from it..........smile
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Himanshu Jaggi - Thursday, 15 May 2008, 12:42 PM
 

Hi Dagny,

Very informative article...wink

Thanks a ton....!!!big grin

 

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by ATOM ANT - Thursday, 15 May 2008, 02:50 PM
 

Finally a new lesson after a long time.Was waiting for it.

So the next book from TG is going to be "TG's ultimate guide to cooking".big grin

Enjoyed the lesson.Clear explanation.

Thanks mam.

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Anindita Mohanty - Thursday, 15 May 2008, 03:58 PM
 

Hi Dagny,

 

This is the very first time I am posting a response smile since I am quite a lazy log.

The post was highly informative- the content was very beneficial to say the least..  since it explicitly explained "premises n arguments" and told us how to go about a few recipes too ;).

Thanks .

 

 

 

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by ankita jain - Thursday, 15 May 2008, 05:12 PM
 

hi Dagny

thanks a lot..smile

its really helpful

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Dagny Taggart - Thursday, 15 May 2008, 07:26 PM
  Hi Anandita,

This chapter is actually dedicated to my mom and TG. Mom because both cooking and English are her gifts to me, and TG for being a rock support throughout. smile
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by S A R SHAH - Thursday, 15 May 2008, 10:05 PM
 

Hi

The lesson is indeed very informative. One really enjoys your unique style of writing......hmm..chop chop....

Thanks for taking so much pains for your readers.

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by mahesh porwal - Friday, 16 May 2008, 01:10 AM
 

superb............esp. the gadha rules

in the second last rule...i thing it should be " If the passage tells you ‘The sun rises in the WEST’, believe it."........just kiddingsmile

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Dagny Taggart - Friday, 16 May 2008, 06:59 AM
  Thanks Mahesh, this was actually what I wanted to type. smile
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Hungry Gadha! - Friday, 16 May 2008, 10:09 AM
 

Dagnysmile,

Just amazing article with brilliant articulation...hmm marvelous control over subject….. BOGOF: padayee ke saath khana ke recipe free..;) just kiddin...awesome concept dagny, I really envy for such kind of writing… I definitely request you to write a book on TG in future… smile and its title might be like this… ‘ TG - a tale of two gadhas’…. I’m sure its gonna be big hit smile

Thanks,

HG

 

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Dagny Taggart - Saturday, 17 May 2008, 06:43 AM
  Thanks HG, and will give a thought to what you have suggested .smile
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by jitendra havaldar - Saturday, 17 May 2008, 12:34 PM
  Thanks Dagny... that's the creative genius at work..err.. cooking..
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Ashwini kumar T - Wednesday, 21 May 2008, 12:36 AM
 

Hi Dagny,shy

This is my first one.

Enjoyed ur recipe to the full, it was lip smacking and very tasty. Finally i feel i wont get lost in solving these confusing reasoning questions.

Thanks a lot

Ashwinbig grin

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Vrushali umbarkar - Thursday, 22 May 2008, 06:09 PM
 

Hi Dagny maam n tg....

dat was really enlightening...

thnx a ton...

Regards,

Vrushali

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Anoop Lal - Sunday, 25 May 2008, 02:09 PM
 

I think it feels awesome when i be able to answer all the questions(after reading the concept) given in your example before reffering to answers..

I hope we shall receive this kind of article in future..

Thanks maa'm for enriching our knowledge...and the yummy dishes...

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Saurabh Shrivastava - Wednesday, 28 May 2008, 08:20 PM
 

Superb Article !!!!

Keep it Up......

Thanks a  lot.....

Saurabh

 

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Sneha Sinha - Wednesday, 11 June 2008, 07:35 PM
  Can you put some I, F, J statements?
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Gul Gul - Saturday, 21 June 2008, 09:57 PM
   Mind blowing !!!
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Dagny Taggart - Saturday, 21 June 2008, 10:58 PM
  Gullz,

It's a pleasure to have you on tg. Really!smile You work harder this year.smile


Dagny
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Gul Gul - Sunday, 22 June 2008, 11:24 PM
 

Ma'am,

It's my pleasure to have you n Sir with me........Thank u so much....!

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by King Fisher - Monday, 7 July 2008, 01:50 PM
  Hi tg sir.I couldnt find the link to fallacies.
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by King Fisher - Monday, 7 July 2008, 01:53 PM
  Hi the article is nice but i m facing problem wid assumption questions.
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Dipanjan Biswas - Monday, 4 August 2008, 11:30 AM
  Hi Mam and Sir,
Rocking Discussion..
When I was navigating through the post the fragrance of CR as well as Polao enchanted mesmile

I found this article very useful like FIJ discussion thread.I have never tried FIJ before due to verbophobia but when I read and then applied it to CAT-06 qs got all correct.I am pretty sure the same scenario will be prevailed regarding CR/ULDI types of problems.

One request though in the 2nd explanation there was a touch of para completion but please Mam/Sir can you please discuss this one separately...

TG Rockzzzz
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Dagny Taggart - Tuesday, 5 August 2008, 11:34 PM
  Hi Dipanjan,

We'll be writing something on paragraph completion soon.
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Mansvi Sharma - Wednesday, 6 August 2008, 01:51 AM
 

Nice

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Dipanjan Biswas - Wednesday, 6 August 2008, 02:29 PM
  Thank you mam..

Regards,
Dipanjan...
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Ankur B - Friday, 22 August 2008, 12:31 PM
 

Hi Tg & Dagny,

Recently a friend of mine told me about this forum and I can't thank him enough for this.
This article is just awesome. I can now do CR question with much ease than before.
But having said that I especially feel problem solving certain kind of question, like the one here:-

Zoologists warn of an imminent surge in the number of bird species that will become extinct within this century. Nevertheless, these zoologists are wrong. One need only consider the information gathered on native North American raptors, such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons. Several of these species came close to vanishing between 1900 and 1970, but since 1970, the local populations of these raptors have rebounded.

The answer to which of the following questions provides information that would be most helpful in evaluating the argument above?
1.How many species of non-native raptors have been introduced into North America since 1970?
2.What special efforts, if any, have been made to rescue native North American raptors since 1970?
3.How many years' experience do the zoologists have in evaluating patterns of extinction among animals?
4.To what degree have native North American raptors migrated to other parts of the world?

5.How many acres of woodland are set aside each year as bird refuges?

What does "evaluating the argument" mean here.

This is one of those minor types of questions.

I suppose we have to evaluate the conclusion but I am not sure about that.
If you could provide a little insight on this??

Ankur

 

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by shri kant - Sunday, 7 September 2008, 02:35 AM
  Hi Ankur,
     Wats d correct answer?? I think it's option C....because here we have to choose an option whose answer is a premise which either weakens or strengthens the argument " Nevertheless, these zoologists are wrong" 

Shrikant
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Priyankur Saha - Friday, 14 November 2008, 11:26 PM
 

Zoologists warn of an imminent surge in the number of bird species that will become extinct within this century. Nevertheless, these zoologists are wrong. One need only consider the information gathered on native North American raptors, such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons. Several of these species came close to vanishing between 1900 and 1970, but since 1970, the local populations of these raptors have rebounded.

The answer to which of the following questions provides information that would be most helpful in evaluating the argument above?
1.How many species of non-native raptors have been introduced into North America since 1970?
2.What special efforts, if any, have been made to rescue native North American raptors since 1970?
3.How many years' experience do the zoologists have in evaluating patterns of extinction among animals?
4.To what degree have native North American raptors migrated to other parts of the world?

5.How many acres of woodland are set aside each year as bird refuges?

What does "evaluating the argument" mean here.

"Evaluate an Argument" question asks to vindicate that how far the given condition is helpful to reinforce the conclusion. So any positive and negative responses of any given options should affect the argument. If it does, that should be the answer. 

P1: Zoologists warn that bird species will become extinct.

P2: Some native raptors vanished between 1900 and 1970 but afterwards they have rebounded.

C1: So Zoologists are wrong.

1. Evaluation of non-native raptor may not be helpful because we are considering only native species. OUT

2. Ok, if any effort has been taken since 1970 then there will be two scenarios. Either the effort was effective or else useless. Say, those effects were effective and species were rebounded thereafter, zoologists are wrong because species will not vanish. Otherwise zoologists are not wrong. So it affects the conclusion. COULD BE ANSWER

3. Zoologists must have enough experience that’s why they got the job!! No way can we challenge their expertise. OUT

4. If they have migrated TO other part of world then we can answer why population decreased between 1900 and 1970, but can we answer why population rebounded again? Did they understand their mistake, and then came back? This is not clear and Zoologists cannot be stigmatized based on this vulnerability.

5. Well, you may have allocated half of city for bird sanctuaries but how it stops birds’ extinction? Are they really up to the mark for birds? It arises several other questions so OUT.

I feel that 2 should be the answer.

Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Priyankur Saha - Friday, 14 November 2008, 11:36 PM
  Thanks to DT and TG for nice CR compilation. Shine on duos crazy diamond....smile
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by neeraj singh - Monday, 30 March 2009, 02:14 AM
  thanks ma'am..
learnt a lot about cooking and also a li'l bit about CR.
hv u written any articles on RC?

--neeraj
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by kat goel - Thursday, 11 June 2009, 10:09 PM
  Nice Post 
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by Maverick ... - Saturday, 20 June 2009, 03:01 PM
  Maam u rock!!!
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by abhishek tripathi - Friday, 21 August 2009, 03:41 AM
  thank u dagny mam once again.well me 2 guessing what should i opt for a tea or a dinner wid u both really it will b mah pleasure 2 have dinner wid u both.mam dis one was among one of ur best articles i have ever read on tg.believe me no words 4 ur wriiting skills hats off 2 u mam
cheers
tg rockzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by SHAUNAK A - Thursday, 2 September 2010, 12:18 PM
  Thnx TG Sir and Dagny MAM... smile
Re: Cooking and Critical Reasoning
by barry white - Saturday, 25 September 2010, 08:27 PM
  Sumptuous critical reasoning tongueout

And TG sir Cooks tooevil

Sad that dagny is not active as  she was ealier... A great article......