PT17.S2.Q21 - Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in - Why is E incorrect?

Comments

• 1 Like

  canihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐

  April 2022 edited April 2022 8491 karma

  It sounds like you are adding in an additional assumption that earthquake rates on a given fault are constant... like we can assign "oh this one is once a million." All we have is that they never rise above 1:100000 years in a quiet zone.

  E just tells you it is exactly 1 per 100000 years. You can negate it (you have less than 1:100000) and the argument remains fine... because that's kind of what it already says. Your hypothetical nuclear sites are both accounted for in the stimulus as neither is more active than prescribed for a quiet zone.
• Yan Wang Member

  April 2022 285 karma

  @aspiringlsater-1 AC E directly contradicts what the stimulus states. The stimulus says no more than once earthquake in 100k years, meaning at most once earthquake in 100k years. However, in AC E, it stated that in the quiet zone, the earthquake happens at least once in 100k. Do you see the discrepancy here, at most vs. at least? They are the opposite; therefore, E can't be the necessary condition.
• canihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐

  April 2022 8491 karma

  @"Yan Wang" said:
  @aspiringlsater-1 AC E directly contradicts what the stimulus states. The stimulus says no more than once earthquake in 100k years, meaning at most once earthquake in 100k years. However, in AC E, it stated that in the quiet zone, the earthquake happens at least once in 100k. Do you see the discrepancy here, at most vs. at least? They are the opposite; therefore, E can't be the necessary condition.

  I'd disagree with this. When you combine E with the stimulus, it is saying there is exactly 1 earthquake every 100k years. It's definitely wrong, but it doesn't contradict the stimulus. A value can be both the maximum (most) and minimum (least). If I say at most 1 and at least 1, I'm just saying "1".
• Yan Wang Member

  April 2022 edited April 2022 285 karma

  @canihazJD said:

  @"Yan Wang" said:
  @aspiringlsater-1 AC E directly contradicts what the stimulus states. The stimulus says no more than once earthquake in 100k years, meaning at most once earthquake in 100k years. However, in AC E, it stated that in the quiet zone, the earthquake happens at least once in 100k. Do you see the discrepancy here, at most vs. at least? They are the opposite; therefore, E can't be the necessary condition.

  I'd disagree with this. When you combine E with the stimulus, it is saying there is exactly 1 earthquake every 100k years. It's definitely wrong, but it doesn't contradict the stimulus. A value can be both the maximum (most) and minimum (least). If I say at most 1 and at least 1, I'm just saying "1".

  Thank you for the reply. I agree if we combine E and the stimulus, it has an overlap of "exactly once." However, firstly, I don't see why I should combine E with the stimulus. It is a NA question, meaning all the ACs are supposed to be additional conditions that the argument depends on. E is literally saying "at least once." I don't think we should put E and stimulus together to conclude that E says precisely once. Secondly, "at least once in 100k years" does contradict "at most once in 100k years" because the former includes possibilities twice, thrice, etc., which is directly against "at most once." That is what I meant by "contradict." I rest my case.
• canihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐

  April 2022 edited April 2022 8491 karma

  @"Yan Wang" said:

  @canihazJD said:

  @"Yan Wang" said:
  @aspiringlsater-1 AC E directly contradicts what the stimulus states. The stimulus says no more than once earthquake in 100k years, meaning at most once earthquake in 100k years. However, in AC E, it stated that in the quiet zone, the earthquake happens at least once in 100k. Do you see the discrepancy here, at most vs. at least? They are the opposite; therefore, E can't be the necessary condition.

  I'd disagree with this. When you combine E with the stimulus, it is saying there is exactly 1 earthquake every 100k years. It's definitely wrong, but it doesn't contradict the stimulus. A value can be both the maximum (most) and minimum (least). If I say at most 1 and at least 1, I'm just saying "1".

  Thank you for the reply. I agree if we combine E and the stimulus, it has an overlap of "exactly once." However, firstly, I don't see why I should combine E with the stimulus. It is a NA question, meaning all the ACs are supposed to be additional conditions that the argument depends on. E is literally saying "at least once." I don't think we should put E and stimulus together to conclude that E says precisely once. Secondly, "at least once in 100k years" does contradict "at most once in 100k years" because the former includes possibilities twice, thrice, etc., which is directly against "at most once." That is what I meant by "contradict." I rest my case.

  Combining it with the stimulus just shows you the effect of the answer... what the answer is actually saying, which in this case is an inference you draw from the stimulus and the AC because the AC doesn't outright say it. You don't have to actually physically put them together. We don't even do that with the right answer because its already assumed in the stimulus.

  My point was that it's inaccurate to say it contradicts or is the opposite of the stimulus. It is literally allowed for. I think we have different definitions of the word contradict.

  I generally take it to mean a denial by assertion of the opposite or to conflict with... neither of which is the case here if the same value is consistent in both scenarios. In other words, if they conflicted there is by definition no way you would be able to say:

  I agree if we combine E and the stimulus, it has an overlap of "exactly once."

  They are not the same... but they are also not contradictions or opposites.

  The opposite of "at least one" (being a "some" relationship) is "not at least one" or "none."

  The opposite of "at most one" is "more than one."

  "none" ≠ "at most one"

  "more than one" ≠ "none"

  Asserting at most and at least 1 does not result contradiction. Just because you eliminate values of 2, 3,... from "at least 1" does not mean you contradict the statement, you are eliminating those values from the range but still allowing for "at least 1" to be true. If you eliminated everything down to 1 (by instead asserting the logical opposite like not at least 1, none, or less than 1), then an overlap is impossible.
• Yan Wang Member

  April 2022 285 karma

  @canihazJD said:

  @"Yan Wang" said:

  @canihazJD said:

  @"Yan Wang" said:
  @aspiringlsater-1 AC E directly contradicts what the stimulus states. The stimulus says no more than once earthquake in 100k years, meaning at most once earthquake in 100k years. However, in AC E, it stated that in the quiet zone, the earthquake happens at least once in 100k. Do you see the discrepancy here, at most vs. at least? They are the opposite; therefore, E can't be the necessary condition.

  I'd disagree with this. When you combine E with the stimulus, it is saying there is exactly 1 earthquake every 100k years. It's definitely wrong, but it doesn't contradict the stimulus. A value can be both the maximum (most) and minimum (least). If I say at most 1 and at least 1, I'm just saying "1".

  Thank you for the reply. I agree if we combine E and the stimulus, it has an overlap of "exactly once." However, firstly, I don't see why I should combine E with the stimulus. It is a NA question, meaning all the ACs are supposed to be additional conditions that the argument depends on. E is literally saying "at least once." I don't think we should put E and stimulus together to conclude that E says precisely once. Secondly, "at least once in 100k years" does contradict "at most once in 100k years" because the former includes possibilities twice, thrice, etc., which is directly against "at most once." That is what I meant by "contradict." I rest my case.

  Combining it with the stimulus just shows you the effect of the answer... what the answer is actually saying, which in this case is an inference you draw from the stimulus and the AC because the AC doesn't outright say it. You don't have to actually physically put them together. We don't even do that with the right answer because its already assumed in the stimulus.

  My point was that it's inaccurate to say it contradicts or is the opposite of the stimulus. It is literally allowed for. I think we have different definitions of the word contradict.

  I generally take it to mean a denial by assertion of the opposite or to conflict with... neither of which is the case here if the same value is consistent in both scenarios. In other words, if they conflicted there is by definition no way you would be able to say:

  I agree if we combine E and the stimulus, it has an overlap of "exactly once."

  They are not the same... but they are also not contradictions or opposites.

  The opposite of "at least one" (being a "some" relationship) is "not at least one" or "none."

  The opposite of "at most one" is "more than one."

  "none" ≠ "at most one"

  "more than one" ≠ "none"

  Asserting at most and at least 1 does not result contradiction. Just because you eliminate values of 2, 3,... from "at least 1" does not mean you contradict the statement, you are eliminating those values from the range but still allowing for "at least 1" to be true. If you eliminated everything down to 1 (by instead asserting the logical opposite like not at least 1, none, or less than 1), then an overlap is impossible.

  I don't think you understand my argument. I was not saying that "at most 1" and "at least 1" are mutually exclusive; I didn't eliminate 2, 3, etc., from "at least 1."
  Mathematically,
  "at least 1 earthquake" = 1 or 2 or 3 or ...
  "at most 1 earthquake" = 0 or 1
  If "at least 1" can't contradict "at most 1", all the elements (e.g., 2 or 3) should be in "at most 1", which is not the case. Hence, "at least 1" can contradict "at most 1."
• canihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐

  April 2022 edited April 2022 8491 karma

  @"Yan Wang" I know what you're trying to say. I just disagree. Particularly with this:

  If "at least 1" can't contradict "at most 1", all the elements (e.g., 2 or 3) should be in "at most 1", which is not the case. Hence, "at least 1" can contradict "at most 1."