Human beings can see the spatial relations among objects by processing information conveyed by light. Scientists trying to build computers that can detect spatial relations by the same kind of process have so far designed and built stationary machines. However, these scientists will not achieve their goal until they produce such a machine that can move around in its environment.Which of the following, if true, would best support the prediction above? (A) Human beings are dependent on visual cues from motion in order to detect spatial relations. (B) Human beings can often easily detect the spatial relations among objects, even when those objects are in motion. (C) Detecting spatial relations among objects requires drawing inferences from the information conveyed by light. (D) Although human beings can discern spatial relations through their sense of hearing, vision is usually the most important means of detecting spatial relations. (E) Information about the spatial relations among objects can be obtained by noticing such things as shadows and the relative sizes of objects
A the goal of scientists is to develop machines that can detect spatial relations, if somehow visual cues from motion play a role in doing so then they need to develop machines that can move around to obtain similar conditions as required by humans.
The level of lead contamination in United States rivers declined between 1975 and 1985. Federal regulations requiring a drop in industrial discharges of lead went into effect in 1975, but the major cause of the decline was a 75 percent drop in the use of leaded gasoline between 1975 and 1985.Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim that the major cause of the decline in the level of lead contamination in United States rives was the decline in the use of leaded gasoline?
(A) The level of lead contamination in United States rivers fell sharply in both 1975 and 1983. (B) Most of the decline in industrial discharges of lead occurred before 1976, but the largest decline in the level of river contamination occurred between 1980 and 1985. (C) Levels of lead contamination in rivers fell sharply in 1975-1976 and rose very slightly over the next nine years. (D) Levels of lead contamination rose in those rivers where there was reduced river flow due to drought. (E) Although the use of leaded gasoline declined 75 percent between 1975 and 1985, 80 percent of the decline took place in 1985.
The level of lead contamination in United States rivers declined between 1975 and 1985. Federal regulations requiring a drop in industrial discharges of lead went into effect in 1975, but the major cause of the decline was a 75 percent drop in the use of leaded gasoline between 1975 and 1985.Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim that the major cause of the decline in the level of lead contamination in United States rives was the decline in the use of leaded gasoline?
(A) The level of lead contamination in United States rivers fell sharply in both 1975 and 1983. (B) Most of the decline in industrial discharges of lead occurred before 1976, but the largest decline in the level of river contamination occurred between 1980 and 1985. (C) Levels of lead contamination in rivers fell sharply in 1975-1976 and rose very slightly over the next nine years. (D) Levels of lead contamination rose in those rivers where there was reduced river flow due to drought. (E) Although the use of leaded gasoline declined 75 percent between 1975 and 1985, 80 percent of the decline took place in 1985.
i think u hv misprinted the years when the use of leaded gasoline dropped..if it reads at 1980-1985, then the answer's B... is the given data right?
The level of lead contamination in United States rivers declined between 1975 and 1985. Federal regulations requiring a drop in industrial discharges of lead went into effect in 1975, but the major cause of the decline was a 75 percent drop in the use of leaded gasoline between 1975 and 1985.Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim that the major cause of the decline in the level of lead contamination in United States rives was the decline in the use of leaded gasoline?
(A) The level of lead contamination in United States rivers fell sharply in both 1975 and 1983. (B) Most of the decline in industrial discharges of lead occurred before 1976, but the largest decline in the level of river contamination occurred between 1980 and 1985. (C) Levels of lead contamination in rivers fell sharply in 1975-1976 and rose very slightly over the next nine years. (D) Levels of lead contamination rose in those rivers where there was reduced river flow due to drought. (E) Although the use of leaded gasoline declined 75 percent between 1975 and 1985, 80 percent of the decline took place in 1985.
The level of lead contamination in United States rivers declined between 1975 and 1985. Federal regulations requiring a drop in industrial discharges of lead went into effect in 1975, but the major cause of the decline was a 75 percent drop in the use of leaded gasoline between 1975 and 1985.Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim that the major cause of the decline in the level of lead contamination in United States rives was the decline in the use of leaded gasoline?
(A) The level of lead contamination in United States rivers fell sharply in both 1975 and 1983.
here we know level drop in 1975 and 1983, what about between periods so loser (B) Most of the decline in industrial discharges of lead occurred before 1976, but the largest decline in the level of river contamination occurred between 1980 and 1985. yes..it is the right ans...explain complete period from 1975 to 1985. (C) Levels of lead contamination in rivers fell sharply in 1975-1976 and rose very slightly over the next nine years. sharply fell where is the data whether is 90% fall or 10 % fall so loser (D) Levels of lead contamination rose in those rivers where there was reduced river flow due to drought. river flow due to drought going out of scope of validity of argment. (E) Although the use of leaded gasoline declined 75 percent between 1975 and 1985, 80 percent of the decline took place in 1985.
this is a contendor for option b, but reiterated same aVerage 75 percent reduction.so loser with repect to B.
Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate themselves naturally, nor even under the spur of nerve-growth stimulants. The reason, recently discovered, is the presence of nerve-growth inhibitors in the spinal cord. Antibodies that deactivate those inhibitors have now been developed. Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future. Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the accuracy of the prediction above? (A) Prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth. (B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors. (C) Nerves in the brain are similar to nerves in the spinal cord in their inability to regenerate themselves naturally. (D) Researchers have been able to stimulate the growth of nerves not located in the spinal cord by using only nerve-growth stimulants. (E) Deactivating the substances inhibiting nerve growth for an extended period would require a steady supply of antibodies Hi, I got this wrong, and was not able to justify the answer given for this question ? Let me know which you feel is correct..
Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate themselves naturally, nor even under the spur of nerve-growth stimulants. The reason, recently discovered, is the presence of nerve-growth inhibitors in the spinal cord. Antibodies that deactivate those inhibitors have now been developed. Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future. Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the accuracy of the prediction above? (A) Prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth. (B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors. (C) Nerves in the brain are similar to nerves in the spinal cord in their inability to regenerate themselves naturally. (D) Researchers have been able to stimulate the growth of nerves not located in the spinal cord by using only nerve-growth stimulants. (E) Deactivating the substances inhibiting nerve growth for an extended period would require a steady supply of antibodies Hi, I got this wrong, and was not able to justify the answer given for this question ? Let me know which you feel is correct..
Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate themselves naturally, nor even under the spur of nerve-growth stimulants. The reason, recently discovered, is the presence of nerve-growth inhibitors in the spinal cord. Antibodies that deactivate those inhibitors have now been developed. Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future. Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the accuracy of the prediction above? (A) Prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth. (B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors. (C) Nerves in the brain are similar to nerves in the spinal cord in their inability to regenerate themselves naturally. (D) Researchers have been able to stimulate the growth of nerves not located in the spinal cord by using only nerve-growth stimulants. (E) Deactivating the substances inhibiting nerve growth for an extended period would require a steady supply of antibodies Hi, I got this wrong, and was not able to justify the answer given for this question ? Let me know which you feel is correct..
The assumption is that the anti-bodies will be effective in nerve repair. So the best thing to do is to attack this assumption. Unfortunately, there is no clear cut option that does that, atleast at first glance. A is out of context because whatever the main function, it is the sub-ordinate function that we're interested in. C also is totally disconnected with the argument. D, if anything, serves to strengthen the argument.
Between E and B, it would be hard to choose. E does not necessarily mean that the procedure will be a failure. Picking B would mean that we're relying on some knowledge of Bio-chemistry which one is not expected to know. The reasoning roughly is that if two chemicals are similar, they are most likely to behave similarly in an identical environment. So the antibodies won't have much affect - directly attacks the assumption.
But relying on outside knowledge somehow doesn't fit well with reasoning questions I feel. I had actually picked E (ruled out B because of the above reason of outside knowledge) but looked at the answer posted and had to redraft.
Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate themselves naturally, nor even under the spur of nerve-growth stimulants. The reason, recently discovered, is the presence of nerve-growth inhibitors in the spinal cord. Antibodies that deactivate those inhibitors have now been developed. Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future. Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the accuracy of the prediction above? (A) Prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth. (B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors. (C) Nerves in the brain are similar to nerves in the spinal cord in their inability to regenerate themselves naturally. (D) Researchers have been able to stimulate the growth of nerves not located in the spinal cord by using only nerve-growth stimulants. (E) Deactivating the substances inhibiting nerve growth for an extended period would require a steady supply of antibodies Hi, I got this wrong, and was not able to justify the answer given for this question ? Let me know which you feel is correct..
I am also confused as to how the ans would be B? I thought the ans was A. But if you revisit the qtn, it says: What casts the most serious doubt on the accuracy of the prediction above?
Now if the chemical structure of Certain nerve-growth stimulants is similar to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors, then is it really right to expect those anti bodies to inhibit nerver growth rather that stimulate the growth? this casts serious doubt on the prediction..
The assumption is that the anti-bodies will be effective in nerve repair. So the best thing to do is to attack this assumption. Unfortunately, there is no clear cut option that does that, atleast at first glance. A is out of context because whatever the main function, it is the sub-ordinate function that we're interested in. C also is totally disconnected with the argument. D, if anything, serves to strengthen the argument.
Between E and B, it would be hard to choose. E does not necessarily mean that the procedure will be a failure. Picking B would mean that we're relying on some knowledge of Bio-chemistry which one is not expected to know. The reasoning roughly is that if two chemicals are similar, they are most likely to behave similarly in an identical environment. So the antibodies won't have much affect - directly attacks the assumption.
But relying on outside knowledge somehow doesn't fit well with reasoning questions I feel. I had actually picked E (ruled out B because of the above reason of outside knowledge) but looked at the answer posted and had to redraft.
i disagree with this. the answer should be A. although we are interested in the subordinate function, if the anti bodies deactivate those inhibitors, their main function will also get affected which is not desired. so this puts a serious limitation on the use of antibodies & thus will cast a doubt in the prediction that the procedure will be so straightforward.
The assumption is that the anti-bodies will be effective in nerve repair. So the best thing to do is to attack this assumption. Unfortunately, there is no clear cut option that does that, atleast at first glance. A is out of context because whatever the main function, it is the sub-ordinate function that we're interested in. C also is totally disconnected with the argument. D, if anything, serves to strengthen the argument.
Between E and B, it would be hard to choose. E does not necessarily mean that the procedure will be a failure. Picking B would mean that we're relying on some knowledge of Bio-chemistry which one is not expected to know. The reasoning roughly is that if two chemicals are similar, they are most likely to behave similarly in an identical environment. So the antibodies won't have much affect - directly attacks the assumption.
But relying on outside knowledge somehow doesn't fit well with reasoning questions I feel. I had actually picked E (ruled out B because of the above reason of outside knowledge) but looked at the answer posted and had to redraft.
IMO, the 'thing' we need to attack here is Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future.
The answer should be A, because this repair technique will be in serious doubt if the inhibitant has other MAIN functions which also get inhibited - from this we can conclude that this technique will not be a standard procedure!! Correct answer please!
IMO, the 'thing' we need to attack here is Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future.
The answer should be A, because this repair technique will be in serious doubt if the inhibitant has other MAIN functions which also get inhibited - from this we can conclude that this technique will not be a standard procedure!! Correct answer please!
IMO B is the correct answer.. ! B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors.
So if u analyze properly what this implies is that if Nerve growth Stimulants have similar structure.. then the role of Antibodies is diminished..because of the following reason :
1. It cant inhibit the growth as its chemical structure is similar to stimulants so it would not inhibit.
IMO B is the correct answer.. ! B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors. So if u analyze properly what this implies is that if Nerve growth Stimulants have similar structure.. then the role of Antibodies is diminished..because of the following reason : 1. It cant inhibit the growth as its chemical structure is similar to stimulants so it would not inhibit.
like mentioned in some post above, we cant come to a conclusion regarding the structure of the inhibitants - we dont know what structure they are talking abt - physical, chemical and how it affects the performance!
like mentioned in some post above, we cant come to a conclusion regarding the structure of the inhibitants - we dont know what structure they are talking abt - physical, chemical and how it affects the performance!
I do agree wid u Neptune.. ! This is debatable.. but my assumption is based on the fact that chemical structure being same.. would imply that they almost perform the same functions ,or atleast they cant perform distinctively different functions.. Thats my assumption to pick option B .. ! Yes this would mean outside knowledge but i guess sometimes u need to just apply a few thngs to reach a logical answer.. let me now your thoughts on this.. !
I do agree wid u Neptune.. ! This is debatable.. but my assumption is based on the fact that chemical structure being same.. would imply that they almost perform the same functions ,or atleast they cant perform distinctively different functions.. Thats my assumption to pick option B .. ! Yes this would mean outside knowledge but i guess sometimes u need to just apply a few thngs to reach a logical answer.. let me now your thoughts on this.. !
hmmm.. like u said it is debatable! but whr is the correct answer???:)
O/T--> how can u imply that the functions are same IF the chemical structure is same.. churning up my lil chemistry knowledge from aeons ago.. then the 2 substances should essentially be the same right?