I'm struggling with some verbal questions and they thing that is most frustrating for me is the explanation of why I'm wrong and the right answer is right. This is long, but at least kind of interesting and worth reading. Give it a shot please, or at least read the question and answers and give me opinions on how to answer these questions.
Here's the most recent example that bugged me: It came from the Berkeley Review, one of the first 5 passages that explain it in a lot of depth.
The Question: The Main force of the author's argument comes from which of the following? A. The statistical reality that some cities like cleveland have been loosing population for decades. B. The threat of drug dealers and other criminals taking over depopulated areas C. The inevitability of municipal bankruptcy, if a shrinking city does not downsize. D. The attractiveness of rebuilding a city with more modern and varied kinds of housing.
About the passage: It's about downsizing cities (like you would downsize a mall) in the circumstance that population is shrinking. This is what the Author thinks they should do, and definitely supports the idea with the idea that if a shrinking city it will go bankrupt. The idea is supported by the idea that cities whose population were decreasing would eliminate parts of the city and move everyone to one location to maximize the resources and eliminate poor efforts at providing services to spread out and lesser populated areas of poorer cities. Basically move people out of poor areas, stop funding the municipal resources provided, allowing for the city to use it's money more efficiently and not have it spread out funding multiple police stations when you could say only have 1 with a more dense populous. Claims A and B are obviously wrong, they don't actually support. The author literally does not support his opinion with any positives of eliminating these certain parts of the city other then the economic disadvantages and gloomy outlook of not doing anything.
My answer is D for a few reasons. First, the question asks the main force of the authors argument, so it's asking for the most persuasive argument to support his point. Choice C seems to extreme, because it says the inevitability of municipal bankruptcy. This is the argument the author is trying to make, and it is the logical structure of the argument (ie. it's the point the author is trying to make through his structure) so I can see why it is correct. However, he never provides solid evidence that a city will go bankrupt if it doesn't downsize. He makes an analogy to what a mall owner would do and then says that the same applies to a city. He doesn't support that, he just says it.
To me, it doesn't follow that, from a mall owner going bankrupt if he doesn't downsize, that a city will go bankrupt if it doesn't downsize. In fact the only legitimate evidence is contrary to that, in my opinion, but the author doesn't realize it. The statistical Reality that cleveland has been loosing populations for decades is one of the only facts here, and that seems to suggest that in fact the city wont go bankrupt if they don't downsize, sure cleveland is poor, but its still there, its not bankrupt. Secondly, the only logical claim he makes is the economic advantage of downsizing as it would save money by providing services to the same population but in a smaller area. It would be less areas to fix up as well. That's Why I chose D.
The only argument that supports what he is saying is economical. Limiting us to C and D. C however is extreme saying that cities will inevitably go bankrupt, despite not actually providing any good evidence that this will happen other then an analogy to a very different thing, a mall, This is what he's trying to argue for, but in no way is it supported or persuasive, how can this be the main force of his argument? He sets up his argument in hope of making this claim, but ends up making the claim, without supporting it.
Choice D, in my opinion is correct because if you were to downsize and save money spent on other things, you would have more money to spend on the locations that you moved everyone to and would be able to better service the smaller area of the community. This is what is logical about the argument, not his belief that cities are the same as malls and other businesses, that is unsupported. What is logically supported through his argument however is that it would have a positive economic impact.
Choice C is right, and Choice D is wrong, and this is the explanation.
The reasoning for the answer states: What point does the author make that cannot be ignored or avoided? Choice D is wrong, because the city is not going to rebuild, only restructure. Downsizing is to save money, not to earn it. It will not increase the tax revenue and so can not be counted on to provide funding for choice D. (For the record, I agree, the point of downsizing is not to rebuild, its to save money.) However, it does save money, and if people are already leaving your city because it sucks, you will take the money you save through this plan (after all the whole point is to free up money so that your city stops deteriorating, not to downsize for the sake of putting money in a bank account somewhere.) If the point of downsizing is to save money, how would it not provide the funding necessary to make the city more attractive. If it didn't there really would be no point to this. Choice C is correct because faced with bankruptch a city must maintain and provide solvency and services for its citizens. There is no way to avoid the threat of bankruptcy, except to address it straight on.
What an unbelievably unsatisfying answer for why I'm wrong and the other answer is right. I'm wrong because downsizing wouldn't save money, not earn it. Are you ****ING KIDDING ME? there is absolutely no difference between saving money and earning money, you'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that. (I'm an economics and management major and also a poker player so this claim is completely insane to someone). If I'm playing poker and am on tilt, after losing my first buy in to a game, and then rebuy in and lose another buy in stupidly, I lost my buy in stupidly. Now if I come back the next day and double my buy in. Then I'm only down one buy in. The poker logic is, you need to know when to quit and not play to break even because if quit after losing your first buy in, instead of wasting another buy in because you are angry, saving that second buy in is exactly the same as doubling up the next day. Your bankroll is what you have in your pocket,200 bucks saved is exactly the same and just as spendable as 200 dollars made But I'm wrong in this question because downsizing is to save money not earn it. The problem is your city looks like garbage, if you save money you can spend in anyway you want, its like free money compared to the current situation, and the first thing they'll do is make the city not crappy. Oh, but wait I get it choice C is correct because there is no way to avoid the Threat of bankruptcy, except to downsize. This is not what the answer says at all!! WTF If answer C was to avoid the threat of bankruptcy they should downsize then it is definitely the right answer because the author actually supports that idea. The Answer states the main force of the argument is the Inevitability of bankruptcy which is not supported at all.
To me choice D is obviously the most persuasive arguments, the economic advantages are supported by the passage, and the money saved would be used to make the used part of the city better so its not exactly the same as it used to be in just a smaller location. Regardless of how much money is saved downsizing, the money will be spent there. Choice C is obviously wrong to me because it is not persuasive at all that bankruptcy is inevitable, if a shrinking city doesn't downsize. While that is what he is trying to argue in favor of, he only supports that idea with a lose analogy to a mall as a business. The reasoning for the answer alters what the answer states to something acceptable and uses the illogical claim that downsizing is to save money, not earn it (as if there is any difference between the 2) to condemn the only part of the authors argument that is in anyway supported of persuasive.
What do you guys think? Is there anyway to get these kinds of questions right? I feel like I'm just being to logical about it. When I answer the stupid answer that would seem right to a 7 year old who glanced over the article I would get this right, because I'd say "Oh, thats what the passage was talking about" Despite not having any comprehension of logical argument structure and comprehension of the passage. Yet when I logically think out this question, and can basically prove that the right answer is not correct or logically supported, and that the wrong answer is correct using logical deductions, I'm wrong because of something like stupid idea like "the point of this is to save money, not earn it"
I can't ever seem to put that stupid answer, because although this is a long post, it was like 10 seconds of thinking, and its pretty hard to select an obviously incorrect and illogical answer instead of a rationally deduced answer that relies on what constitutes a valid argument. It's unbelievably frustrating, when you are then wrong because of illogically supported claims and twisting of what the answers are saying so that they can say the stupid answer is right.
What should I do? How can I know when to attack problems like this by just picking the stupid answer and not using logic to support the answer I select. You certainly could not claim from the evidence in this passage (despite it being the authors intent) that a shrinking city that doesn't downsize will inevitably go bankrupt. But you can very logically rationalize that the money saved through downsizing will be used to improve the livable city. It seems just as logical that the main force of the passage is the benefit that would result for the people by downsizing. Any suggestions people?
Here's the most recent example that bugged me: It came from the Berkeley Review, one of the first 5 passages that explain it in a lot of depth.
The Question: The Main force of the author's argument comes from which of the following? A. The statistical reality that some cities like cleveland have been loosing population for decades. B. The threat of drug dealers and other criminals taking over depopulated areas C. The inevitability of municipal bankruptcy, if a shrinking city does not downsize. D. The attractiveness of rebuilding a city with more modern and varied kinds of housing.
About the passage: It's about downsizing cities (like you would downsize a mall) in the circumstance that population is shrinking. This is what the Author thinks they should do, and definitely supports the idea with the idea that if a shrinking city it will go bankrupt. The idea is supported by the idea that cities whose population were decreasing would eliminate parts of the city and move everyone to one location to maximize the resources and eliminate poor efforts at providing services to spread out and lesser populated areas of poorer cities. Basically move people out of poor areas, stop funding the municipal resources provided, allowing for the city to use it's money more efficiently and not have it spread out funding multiple police stations when you could say only have 1 with a more dense populous. Claims A and B are obviously wrong, they don't actually support. The author literally does not support his opinion with any positives of eliminating these certain parts of the city other then the economic disadvantages and gloomy outlook of not doing anything.
My answer is D for a few reasons. First, the question asks the main force of the authors argument, so it's asking for the most persuasive argument to support his point. Choice C seems to extreme, because it says the inevitability of municipal bankruptcy. This is the argument the author is trying to make, and it is the logical structure of the argument (ie. it's the point the author is trying to make through his structure) so I can see why it is correct. However, he never provides solid evidence that a city will go bankrupt if it doesn't downsize. He makes an analogy to what a mall owner would do and then says that the same applies to a city. He doesn't support that, he just says it.
To me, it doesn't follow that, from a mall owner going bankrupt if he doesn't downsize, that a city will go bankrupt if it doesn't downsize. In fact the only legitimate evidence is contrary to that, in my opinion, but the author doesn't realize it. The statistical Reality that cleveland has been loosing populations for decades is one of the only facts here, and that seems to suggest that in fact the city wont go bankrupt if they don't downsize, sure cleveland is poor, but its still there, its not bankrupt. Secondly, the only logical claim he makes is the economic advantage of downsizing as it would save money by providing services to the same population but in a smaller area. It would be less areas to fix up as well. That's Why I chose D.
The only argument that supports what he is saying is economical. Limiting us to C and D. C however is extreme saying that cities will inevitably go bankrupt, despite not actually providing any good evidence that this will happen other then an analogy to a very different thing, a mall, This is what he's trying to argue for, but in no way is it supported or persuasive, how can this be the main force of his argument? He sets up his argument in hope of making this claim, but ends up making the claim, without supporting it.
Choice D, in my opinion is correct because if you were to downsize and save money spent on other things, you would have more money to spend on the locations that you moved everyone to and would be able to better service the smaller area of the community. This is what is logical about the argument, not his belief that cities are the same as malls and other businesses, that is unsupported. What is logically supported through his argument however is that it would have a positive economic impact.
Choice C is right, and Choice D is wrong, and this is the explanation.
The reasoning for the answer states: What point does the author make that cannot be ignored or avoided? Choice D is wrong, because the city is not going to rebuild, only restructure. Downsizing is to save money, not to earn it. It will not increase the tax revenue and so can not be counted on to provide funding for choice D. (For the record, I agree, the point of downsizing is not to rebuild, its to save money.) However, it does save money, and if people are already leaving your city because it sucks, you will take the money you save through this plan (after all the whole point is to free up money so that your city stops deteriorating, not to downsize for the sake of putting money in a bank account somewhere.) If the point of downsizing is to save money, how would it not provide the funding necessary to make the city more attractive. If it didn't there really would be no point to this. Choice C is correct because faced with bankruptch a city must maintain and provide solvency and services for its citizens. There is no way to avoid the threat of bankruptcy, except to address it straight on.
What an unbelievably unsatisfying answer for why I'm wrong and the other answer is right. I'm wrong because downsizing wouldn't save money, not earn it. Are you ****ING KIDDING ME? there is absolutely no difference between saving money and earning money, you'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that. (I'm an economics and management major and also a poker player so this claim is completely insane to someone). If I'm playing poker and am on tilt, after losing my first buy in to a game, and then rebuy in and lose another buy in stupidly, I lost my buy in stupidly. Now if I come back the next day and double my buy in. Then I'm only down one buy in. The poker logic is, you need to know when to quit and not play to break even because if quit after losing your first buy in, instead of wasting another buy in because you are angry, saving that second buy in is exactly the same as doubling up the next day. Your bankroll is what you have in your pocket,200 bucks saved is exactly the same and just as spendable as 200 dollars made But I'm wrong in this question because downsizing is to save money not earn it. The problem is your city looks like garbage, if you save money you can spend in anyway you want, its like free money compared to the current situation, and the first thing they'll do is make the city not crappy. Oh, but wait I get it choice C is correct because there is no way to avoid the Threat of bankruptcy, except to downsize. This is not what the answer says at all!! WTF If answer C was to avoid the threat of bankruptcy they should downsize then it is definitely the right answer because the author actually supports that idea. The Answer states the main force of the argument is the Inevitability of bankruptcy which is not supported at all.
To me choice D is obviously the most persuasive arguments, the economic advantages are supported by the passage, and the money saved would be used to make the used part of the city better so its not exactly the same as it used to be in just a smaller location. Regardless of how much money is saved downsizing, the money will be spent there. Choice C is obviously wrong to me because it is not persuasive at all that bankruptcy is inevitable, if a shrinking city doesn't downsize. While that is what he is trying to argue in favor of, he only supports that idea with a lose analogy to a mall as a business. The reasoning for the answer alters what the answer states to something acceptable and uses the illogical claim that downsizing is to save money, not earn it (as if there is any difference between the 2) to condemn the only part of the authors argument that is in anyway supported of persuasive.
What do you guys think? Is there anyway to get these kinds of questions right? I feel like I'm just being to logical about it. When I answer the stupid answer that would seem right to a 7 year old who glanced over the article I would get this right, because I'd say "Oh, thats what the passage was talking about" Despite not having any comprehension of logical argument structure and comprehension of the passage. Yet when I logically think out this question, and can basically prove that the right answer is not correct or logically supported, and that the wrong answer is correct using logical deductions, I'm wrong because of something like stupid idea like "the point of this is to save money, not earn it"
I can't ever seem to put that stupid answer, because although this is a long post, it was like 10 seconds of thinking, and its pretty hard to select an obviously incorrect and illogical answer instead of a rationally deduced answer that relies on what constitutes a valid argument. It's unbelievably frustrating, when you are then wrong because of illogically supported claims and twisting of what the answers are saying so that they can say the stupid answer is right.
What should I do? How can I know when to attack problems like this by just picking the stupid answer and not using logic to support the answer I select. You certainly could not claim from the evidence in this passage (despite it being the authors intent) that a shrinking city that doesn't downsize will inevitably go bankrupt. But you can very logically rationalize that the money saved through downsizing will be used to improve the livable city. It seems just as logical that the main force of the passage is the benefit that would result for the people by downsizing. Any suggestions people?
