Oh this question is fun. I mean it, I love these kinds of questions, because they are really more of a reading comprehension question.
We are given a set of facts and asked, hey, with these facts what do we also know?
So let's take a look at those facts. You don't need to diagram, just read.
Q needs to increase their production by 10% or uh oh bye bye.
If they can do 10%, then actually 20% is also possible.
Let's take a different look at it with an example. Let's say I go to the doctor and tell my doctor that I've been eating nothing but Oreos and Ferrero Rochers all day every day. My doctor tells me I'm going to die if I don't start eating healthy. Let's start small and just eat healthy one day. And guess what, if I can eat healthy for one day, I can eat healthy for 2 days! Right?
Well, in both our example (eating healthy) and passage (increasing production), the entire thing rests on the assumption that we will be able to do the small thing (10%/1 day) before achieving something greater (20%/2 days). If we aren't able to do the small thing though, uh oh bye bye to both the company and me.
So let's go into the answer choices and see if there's something that is going to say something about this relationship between the smaller thing and the bigger thing.
A) What are you talking about? Do we know anything about how their production structure has made it possible for them to survive in this market? No we don't. Maybe their production structure is terrible and that's why they need to increase it. We only know that it is a structure in which if 10% is possible, 20% is attainable. NEXT!
Tempting like an Oreo but absolutely not. We just don't know this. This is mistaking necessary and sufficient, and if you chose this answer, I invite you to go over those concepts again. This answer says that increasing production is sufficient for preventing bankruptcy, when really it is just a necessary condition. We know if it doesn't happen, Q goes bye bye, but maybe even if it does happen they go bye bye because oh the whole time the CEO has been extorting money.
C) What? Sure it says that because of the transformation of the market there's a need to increase production, but there could have been something else that would have required it too, like idk, the extorting CEO we talked about in B.
Let's use the other example to illustrate what C is saying:
If I eat Oreos, I will die.
So if I don't eat Oreos, I will not die?
Nah that's not true, we are all going to die.
D) Ummm we have absolutely no idea about this. I want to eat healthy, but my wife just made cookies.
E) Hey there we go. This is what we predicted!
It's saying hey if the bigger thing is not able to be done, you must not have completed your smaller task. And since you have not completed your smaller task, bye bye! E is the right answer as we can point to the passage and say yup it says that
A: you need to complete the smaller task to survive
B: if you can complete the smaller task, you can complete the bigger task
So if we go backwards we would say
You cannot complete the bigger task so that means you didn't complete the smaller task which means you cannot survive.
Thank you so much for providing a detailed explanation for this question, you cleared my doubts also. I have to say that I am a huge fan of this College paper writing service. I had my doubts at first but the writers are really academic geniuses. They https://www.grabmyessay.com/college-paper came up with a great topic for my paper and it turned out to be a masterpiece. There was no plagiarism, it was pure human intelligence. I got what I paid for and more. The process is safe and reliable. If you are having a hard time with your assignments, these people are there for you. Highly recommended.
Comments
which pt / section / question number?
Hi I am so sorry, I am new to this part of 7sage. Its PT 5,Section 1, Q25
Actually I just had to re-read correctly, sorry and thanks for your willingness to help me > @saraensimpson said:
Hello!
Oh this question is fun. I mean it, I love these kinds of questions, because they are really more of a reading comprehension question.
We are given a set of facts and asked, hey, with these facts what do we also know?
So let's take a look at those facts. You don't need to diagram, just read.
Q needs to increase their production by 10% or uh oh bye bye.
If they can do 10%, then actually 20% is also possible.
Let's take a different look at it with an example. Let's say I go to the doctor and tell my doctor that I've been eating nothing but Oreos and Ferrero Rochers all day every day. My doctor tells me I'm going to die if I don't start eating healthy. Let's start small and just eat healthy one day. And guess what, if I can eat healthy for one day, I can eat healthy for 2 days! Right?
Well, in both our example (eating healthy) and passage (increasing production), the entire thing rests on the assumption that we will be able to do the small thing (10%/1 day) before achieving something greater (20%/2 days). If we aren't able to do the small thing though, uh oh bye bye to both the company and me.
So let's go into the answer choices and see if there's something that is going to say something about this relationship between the smaller thing and the bigger thing.
A) What are you talking about? Do we know anything about how their production structure has made it possible for them to survive in this market? No we don't. Maybe their production structure is terrible and that's why they need to increase it. We only know that it is a structure in which if 10% is possible, 20% is attainable. NEXT!
Tempting like an Oreo but absolutely not. We just don't know this. This is mistaking necessary and sufficient, and if you chose this answer, I invite you to go over those concepts again. This answer says that increasing production is sufficient for preventing bankruptcy, when really it is just a necessary condition. We know if it doesn't happen, Q goes bye bye, but maybe even if it does happen they go bye bye because oh the whole time the CEO has been extorting money.
C) What? Sure it says that because of the transformation of the market there's a need to increase production, but there could have been something else that would have required it too, like idk, the extorting CEO we talked about in B.
Let's use the other example to illustrate what C is saying:
If I eat Oreos, I will die.
So if I don't eat Oreos, I will not die?
Nah that's not true, we are all going to die.
D) Ummm we have absolutely no idea about this. I want to eat healthy, but my wife just made cookies.
E) Hey there we go. This is what we predicted!
It's saying hey if the bigger thing is not able to be done, you must not have completed your smaller task. And since you have not completed your smaller task, bye bye! E is the right answer as we can point to the passage and say yup it says that
A: you need to complete the smaller task to survive
B: if you can complete the smaller task, you can complete the bigger task
So if we go backwards we would say
You cannot complete the bigger task so that means you didn't complete the smaller task which means you cannot survive.
E is the correct answer
Thank you so much for providing a detailed explanation for this question, you cleared my doubts also. I have to say that I am a huge fan of this College paper writing service. I had my doubts at first but the writers are really academic geniuses. They https://www.grabmyessay.com/college-paper came up with a great topic for my paper and it turned out to be a masterpiece. There was no plagiarism, it was pure human intelligence. I got what I paid for and more. The process is safe and reliable. If you are having a hard time with your assignments, these people are there for you. Highly recommended.