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."

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.

Let's rewrite this in a semi-mathematical manner, using the following shorthand:

E: (Books read by) English Majors

A: (Books read by) Anthropology Majors

CS: (Books read by) Computer Science Majors

B: (Books read by) Biology Majors

We know the following:

(1) E > A

(2) CS < B

(3) B < E

Now, we can combine (2) and (3):

CS < B < E

Let's rewrite that:

E > B > CS

Now, while we know that E > A, we cannot say anything about the relative position of A. It could be all the way below the computer science majors, it could be between biology and computer science, etc. None of the answers are acceptable.

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 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.

Just follow the logic of the strange expressions. Since Bob is a creep, he is also a ring-rang. Now, all zip-doodles are mishmashes. Thus, some ring-rangs are mishmashes. Thus we can say that all creeps are ring-rangs, some of which are mishmashes. Thus, some creeps are mishmashes.

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 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.

Let us rewrite this question in quasi-mathematical terms. The following is certain:

Allen > Sally > Jim

However, regarding Malinda, we do not know if her doubling of Sally's expenditure is necessarily more than that of Allen's or less. Perhaps Allen spent five times what Sally did. Perhaps Allen does indeed spend less than Malinda. We are not told! Thus, the most that we can say is that Jim spent less than Malinda. Perhaps this is a boring conclusion, but logic requires us to conclude in this way!

Let's rewrite this in a semi-mathematical way:

C: Chemistry difficulty

PS: Political science difficulty

PH: Physics difficulty

B: Biology difficulty

We know the following from our prompt:

(1) C > PS

(2) PS < PH (or: PH > PS)

(3) PH > B

However, note that we cannot really say much else. We do not know the relative positions of biology and political science, except that they are easier than physics. Likewise, while we know that chemistry is harder than political science, we cannot say anything about its relationship to physics. (Likewise, this means that we cannot say anything about its relationship to biology). Thus, the answer is "none of the others."