Drawing Logical Conclusions - HSPT Language Skills

Since Peter is a good conversationalist, there is a chance that he is an interesting person. All interesting people are good at conversation. This does not mean, however, that all people who are good at conversation are interesting people. (The direction goes: If interesting then good at conversation); therefore we can eliminate the flat claim that he is an interesting person. At best we can say that he might be interesting. Likewise, the correspondence between professors and being interesting is not absolute (only some are interesting). We cannot rule out that Peter is a professor based on what we have said. Thus, this weak claim is the best answer.

Now, since John is fanatically devoted to video games, we can call him a fanatic in general. Based on the information provided, we cannot say what percentage of fanatics shout loudly. Likely, we do not know what percentage of those who shout loudly get hoarse throats. The safest thing to presume is merely that there is a chance that John shouts loudly and, because of that chance, there is a chance that he has a hoarse throat. Nothing more speceific can be determined.

Note that all of the incorrect answers assert likelyhood to some degree. This is not merited by the information that is provided. All that we know is that there is a chance that someone standing next to a speaker will ultimately become deaf. Whether or not this will happen is left relatively undetermined. Since it is better not to presume one way or the other, the best option is "none of the above."

All of these potential answers presume too much. We can say nothing concerned with the safety of Blueburgh. For all we know, it might be plagued with flesh eating locusts or fire-breathing dragons (or at least something dangerous and real, even if not earthquakes). Regarding the damaged buildings, we likewise do not know if (for example) the city often has fires that damage buildings. We cannot extrapolate anything about the general damage of buildings based on the information that we have been provided here. Thus, the best answer is "None of the other answers."

First of all, note that "pragmatic" means "sensible and practical." Thus, since the people of Uniontown make practical decisions, they are at least (on average, based on our information) more likely to choose a pragmatic solution—that is, coal power. We can say nothing about whether or not they will love or hate either option. Indeed, they might hate making the choice, though they know it is the practical thing to do (and hence prefer it without wholly loving it).

Note that all we can speak about is the situation right now. (This immediately elimnates the claim about the cost of the house in the future). Now, rats (giant or not) are a type of "vermin." Thus, their presence has defintely brought down the value of my house. This is the only thing I can say with certainty among the options provided. The house is not necessarily worthless, and while I should eliminate the potentially disease-carrying animals, the information provided only allows me to say that my house has likely lost value because of their presence in the house.

Among the options provided, none of them can be concluded based on the information that has been provided. While there was a hailstorm yesterday, that does not guarantee that George is happy today. Certainly, he is always happy when it is hailing. That only tells us that he was happy yesterday—when it was hailing. Now, that means that yesterday, there was a particular chance that Mildred was bitter, especially given George's joy. Indeed, we could even likely say she is bitter today—she is said to be bitter regularly (just more so when George is happy); however, that is not provided as an option. Likewise, perhaps George is only happy when it hails—we do not know one way or the other based on the information provided. Thus, the best answer among those provided is "None of the other answers."

Do not be distracted by additional information that is included in this question. We actually are not told too terribly much, but let's note what we can. We are told nothing about Peter other than his friendship with Ronald. The best that we can say about Peter is, "Peter has a joyful friend." This is not provided among the options. Now, since Ronald is joyful, there is a chance he is temperamental. This is not guaranteed—the problem states merely that if you are temperamental, then you will be either angry or joyful. It says nothing about the "other direction" (i.e. from joy to temperamental). Someone who is joyful may just be that—joyful—without being temperamental. Still, being temperamental is not incompatible with being joyful. Thus, there is a chance that Ronald is temperamental. While not all temperamental people are musicians—given what we have said—it is not incompatible with being temperamental to be a musician. Thus, among the answers, only, "Ronald might be a musician," is correct. Note, however, that this is a very weak claim.

The information provided merely tells us that books are among the types of objects made of acid-free paper and that most newspapers are among those made of acidic paper. There may be many other types of things made of either type of material, so being told that a bin has a mixture of acidic and non-acidic paper really does not tell us much. Indeed, note that the information merely states that the bin has a mixture of the types of paper. This does not even indicate whether or not the paper has printing on it. That really does not tell us much at all; therefore, among the options provided, the best answer is, "We cannot determine if there are books or newspapers in the bin."

Let's rewrite our data as follows:

Ronald: Joy and X

Jacob: Sorrow and impatience

Mildred: Joy and Y

We have two of each joy, sorrow, and impatience to be used in the group. This means that Ronald and Mildred could either have sorrow or impatience. Now, do not read too much into the question, thinking that this is impossible—for one of them to have joy and sorrow. Perhaps they experience these at different times. The question is not specific in that regard. We cannot say that Ronald or Mildred must have one or the other—there is not enough data to justify such a specific claim; however, we can say something like, "Ronald also experiences either sorrow or impatience."

Do not be fooled by the implications of the statements regarding tallness and toenails. While everyone with long toenails is spiteful, it is not necessary that everyone who is spiteful to have long toenails. (Someone could be spiteful merely for the sake of spite, for instance). Likewise, we cannot conclude that George is likely to be tall. Still, we can make the certain conclusion that he is very unpleasant, for all spiteful people are very unpleasant.

Given that we know that almost all roaches are filled with diseases and that there are millions of them in the garbage pit, we can at least surmise that there is a great likelyhood that there will be a good deal of disease in the pit. Still, we cannot say this conclusively. There is always the (very improbable) chance that only disease-free roaches are in the pit. Likewise, we cannot guarantee that there are any disease-free roaches in the pit. It could be the case as well that all million are disease-ridden. The best that we can conclude is the modest answer, "The garbage pit is likely to be disease-filled."

Given that Ronald is a hobo in a (self-created) society (or club of sorts), we cannot say that he is completely anti-social. At least based on the information that we are provided, if you are a hobo who is not completely anti-social, you must be a musician. Thus, since Ronald is a non-anti-social hobo, he must be a musician.

Based on the information that we are provided, we can say nothing about Peter's general attitude to translations, nor his native tongue. While translations are rarely faithful to original texts, this does not mean that they always are unfaithful. Because of this, we can say that there is a decent likelihood that the translation of Peter's poetry caused him to be angered; however, we cannot go so far as to say that it must have done so. Perhaps this translation was faithful.

Do not surmise anything more than your data permits you to conclude. Your data says, "There never are sales on corn in Alaska." You must believe this (at least for this problem) and not bring in any other information that you might believe to be the case—whether it is based on good knowledge of economic laws or upon common sense. The only thing that can be "concluded" is not much of a conclusion: Corn prices are staying the same in Alaska. (Remember: They never go on sale).

First of all, note that "pilfer" means steal (usually something of little value). Since Bob stole three pizzas yesterday, we can likewise state that he pilfered them. Thus, he was happy yesterday. (Such pilfering always makes him joyous). We do not know if he is happy today, nor do we know anything about his personality in general. Likewise, the conclusion that we can reach is not that he was merely potentially joyful. He certainly was—at least given the data with which we have been presented.

At least based on the information that we are given, we must say that all painful bushes are avoided. (Remember, follow the argument formally, not necessarily common sense. This is only a matter of logical form). If Bob saw a briar, we can also say that he saw a painful bush. Since he saw a painful bush, he must have avoided it (since all such bushes are always avoided). Thus, the answer to this question is, "Bob avoided the briar."

Since Brandon thinks that most tablecloths are ugly, there is at least a good chance that Maria's gift will be deemed ugly by Brandon. It is not guaranteed, so we cannot state that he will necessarily believe it to be ugly. Since we are told that the sight of ugly things makes Brandon depressed, the reception of a tablecloth risks Brandon seeing an ugly thing and hence becoming depressed; therefore, the best we can say (among the answers provided, at least) is that Brandon is likely to be depressed.

Do not be fooled by this simple question. While all refineries are profitable, we cannot say that all profitable things are refineries. Thus, while the new plant at Ralton is profitable, we have no idea what kind of plant it is. The best we can say is that it will pay a lot of taxes (at least based on the information with which we have been provided). All of the other answers either infer too much or are indeed quite off the mark.

Since Peter is taller than William, who is taller than Sally, we can say that Peter is taller than Sally. We can say nothing at all about Henry's height in comparison with that of Sally. We can say that he is shorter than William and Peter (since William is shorter than Peter). Beyond that, we can say nothing more specific.