Share This Link

Determining why people have so many opinions may be interesting but does not directly help in making an informed decision.

Realizing that it is impossible to sort through so many viewpoints reflects a defeatist attitude and discourages critical thinking, which is essential in informed decision-making.

Interviewing each person who has a different viewpoint is impractical and unnecessary. A consumer can access and evaluate different perspectives through research and credible sources without personally interviewing everyone.

If someone is a ballet dancer, that person is graceful but clumsy: This statement contradicts the information given in the original statement, which says that ballet dancers are not clumsy. Therefore, this option is false.

No graceful dancers are overweight: While this statement may seem logical based on the first premise, it doesn't directly follow from the information provided. The first statement says that ballet dancers are neither overweight nor clumsy, but it doesn't say that all graceful dancers are not overweight, just that ballet dancers fit both traits.

Ballet dancers are neither graceful nor clumsy: This contradicts the second premise, which says that if someone is not overweight, they are graceful. Since ballet dancers are not overweight, they must be graceful. Therefore, this option is false.

justify the opinions presented in the televised debate: While justifying opinions is important, the student needs to first evaluate and understand all perspectives before forming or justifying their own opinion.

engage in a debate with others: Engaging in a debate may help deepen understanding, but it’s not the first step in forming a reasoned decision. The student needs to evaluate the issue from various viewpoints first.

accept the views of the most qualified expert: While expert opinions are valuable, it is essential to critically evaluate multiple viewpoints to make an informed decision, rather than simply accepting one authority’s view.

prove statement one conclusively: While the additional statements provide support for the idea presented in statement one, they don't prove it conclusively. They give context and additional information but don't necessarily establish a direct proof.

explain why statement one is false: Statement one is not false, so this option is not correct. The other statements provide information that aligns with and supports statement one, not refute it.

describe all of the uses for clay: While the statements describe some uses for clay, they do not cover all possible uses. They are specifically focused on the cultural and historical significance of clay, not a comprehensive list of all clay's uses.

Conduct a survey of those who drink orange juice to prevent a cold: While a survey might provide some data on people's behaviors, it wouldn't establish a cause-and-effect relationship between drinking orange juice and preventing the common cold. Surveys can show trends, but they can't confirm scientific conclusions without controlled experimental data.

Review the chemical composition of orange juice: Understanding the composition of orange juice (such as its vitamin C content) is important, but it doesn't directly address whether it prevents colds. The researcher needs to look at studies that investigate the outcome of drinking orange juice, not just its ingredients.

Drink orange juice when a cold is coming on: This is more of a personal action than a scientific approach. The researcher would need to gather evidence from controlled studies rather than relying on personal experience or anecdotal evidence.

chef is talking specifically about a particular frying pan, not all frying pans. There’s no evidence provided that all frying pans have multiple cooking methods.

There is a special pan that allows for two cooking methods: This doesn't accurately capture the meaning of the chef's claim, which doesn't specify the number of cooking methods but suggests that the pan can be used in multiple ways.

The same cooking method is used by several frying pans: This statement would only be true if the chef specifically mentioned that multiple pans are being used for the same method, which isn’t the case. The focus here is on the versatility of a particular frying pan, not the uniformity of methods across multiple pans.

This option is not relevant to the reasoning presented in the statement. The issue is not about the importance of the car manufacturer's beliefs but about the limited reasoning used to dismiss the speed limit.

The speaker's argument does not demonstrate a clear relationship between speed and car breakdown; it only suggests that some people drive faster without apparent car breakdowns, which doesn't prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship.

The speaker's reasoning does not conclusively show that auto safety cannot be improved; it merely challenges one aspect of the argument (car breakdowns). The reasoning is incomplete and ignores the life-saving aspect of the speed limit.

The conclusion is not a statement of fact, but rather a generalization based on a study of a specific group of people. The fact that 70% of heroin users had used marijuana before does not automatically lead to the conclusion that all marijuana users will try heroin.

While the conclusion may be an assumption, it's more specific in that it makes a sweeping, unjustified generalization. The issue is not clarity, but the improper inference drawn from the data.

The conclusion actually needs much more support and is not logically valid as it stands. It makes a broad statement that is not directly supported by the data.

This answer is too absolute. While the teacher’s reasoning suggests a likely outcome (if one child stops, the others might collide), it does not guarantee that all children will fall down, as there could be variations in the children's reactions or the space between them. Therefore, the claim doesn’t must be true.

This option suggests that the claim is likely false, which isn’t accurate. The scenario presented by the teacher seems plausible, so it’s more likely true, though it’s not guaranteed.

The statement could be true, as the reasoning is based on the children’s positions and actions. There is no reason to completely rule it out, so this answer is incorrect.

You should not apply for this job unless you seek hard work and long hours: While this is a valid interpretation, it introduces a slightly different emphasis. It implies a negative condition ("should not apply unless"), whereas the original statement is more neutral about the condition for applying.

If you apply for this job, you should seek hard work and long hours: This changes the meaning slightly. The advertisement doesn't say you must seek hard work and long hours if you apply for the job. It says that only those who seek hard work and long hours should apply, not the reverse.

You should not seek hard work and long hours except by applying for this job: This changes the meaning too much. The original statement suggests that the job is for those who already seek hard work and long hours, not that applying for the job is the only way to seek those things.