Concerned about the well-being of its eldery citizens

[lemonperb]

when you get questions like this, SIMPLICITY and DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE MATERIAL OF THE PASSAGE are the keys.

one especially powerful technique is to simplify the passage down to 1-2 sentences.

here is one such simplification, for this passage:
the government increased all the elderly people's pensions. but, for some reason, the elderly people don't actually have any more money now.
our challenge is to find the "some reason" here.

we need a reason why the increase will have NO EFFECT on the elderly people's income. in other words, we must find some factor that will immediately cancel out the effect of the increase, since we know that the elderly people are indeed getting the money.

(e) does a splendid job of this. if the elderly's income is supplemented by their children - up to a FIXED amount ("a comfortable living") - then it makes absolutely no difference how much pension those elderly people are receiving, as long as the pension is less than "a comfortable living". in other words, their children are just going to pay the difference anyway.

(d) gives no reason why the effect of the pension would be cancelled out. in fact, if (d) is true, then we would expect just the opposite: if more elderly runagians are in poverty than ever before, then the effect of the pension increase should be amplified (in terms of lifting them out of that poverty).

Hi Ron, I understand your explanation of "E"
Here are my questions,
1.In "D",Does "below the poverty level" mean poorer than the poverty level?(I followed your explanation) I originally thought it meant not worse off.

2. If the premise didn't mention"Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible", can "C" be right then?

[RonPurewal]

1.In "D",Does "below the poverty level" mean poorer than the poverty level?(I followed your explanation) I originally thought it meant not worse off.

"Below" means "the number (= income) is lower". So, poorer. More intense poverty.

Even if that phrase is completely unfamiliar to you, you can deduce this interpretation from thinking about the context of choice D.
If the meaning were "better off", then the situation clearly would not spur the government to RAISE pension handouts! So, it must mean the opposite.

[lemonperb]

"Below" means "the number (= income) is lower". So, poorer. More intense poverty.

Even if that phrase is completely unfamiliar to you, you can deduce this interpretation from thinking about the context of choice D.
If the meaning were "better off", then the situation clearly would not spur the government to RAISE pension handouts! So, it must mean the opposite.

Got it! Thanks Ron!
But I think you forgot to answer my second question:

2. If the premise didn't mention"Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible", can "C" be right then?

[lemonperb]

(d) gives no reason why the effect of the pension would be cancelled out. in fact, if (d) is true, then we would expect just the opposite: if more elderly runagians are in poverty than ever before, then the effect of the pension increase should be amplified (in terms of lifting them out of that poverty).

So if D is changed into" people above the poverty line reached a high..." Can it be inferred that less people are in poverty, so the effect of the pension increase are not amplified. Therefore D becomes a plausible explanation?
Sorry I am really bad at critical reasoning and cannot think in the right logical way as you do.

[RonPurewal]

So if D is changed into" people above the poverty line reached a high..."

If this change is made to D, then it becomes nonsense. If the number of people NOT in poverty is at an all-time high, then the government is not suddenly going to increase pensions.

(As an analogy, this would be like saying that, since I now weigh more than ever before, I should start eating more food.)

[RonPurewal]

Sorry I am really bad at critical reasoning and cannot think in the right logical way as you do.

If you think you are "bad at critical reasoning", then you are probably approaching it as though it were an "academic" pursuit.
Honestly, "the right logical way" is, in the vast majority of problems, little more than everyday real-world reasoning. The problem lies not in "logic", but in reading the text"”which is dense and hard to read"”and understanding the point in the same way you would in a conversation.

That you aren't approaching this in the right way is confirmed by the fact that you're entertaining changes that will turn the answer choices into nonsense.
If you're thinking about these things the right way"”like a "person on the street", preferably one who is, it at least some way, invested in the situation described"”you'll reject such thoughts instantly, since they don't make sense.

[lemonperb]

If this change is made to D, then it becomes nonsense. If the number of people NOT in poverty is at an all-time high, then the government is not suddenly going to increase pensions.

(As an analogy, this would be like saying that, since I now weigh more than ever before, I should start eating more food.)

I see. I love this analogy! Thank you so much Ron!
Sometimes I try to make analogies but just can't apply the situation to simpler and more understandable one.

The problem lies not in "logic", but in reading the text"”which is dense and hard to read"”and understanding the point in the same way you would in a conversation.

That you aren't approaching this in the right way is confirmed by the fact that you're entertaining changes that will turn the answer choices into nonsense.

If you're thinking about these things the right way"”like a "person on the street", preferably one who is, it at least some way, invested in the situation described"”you'll reject such thoughts instantly, since they don't make sense.

Thank you for the advice you gave above. I am not good at reading comprehension as well. So just as you said, that's why I have problems with "logic". Anyway thanks again!

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

Understanding the appropriate outlook is the first"”and biggest"”step toward better performance on these questions.
Once you understand that CR passages are best read as descriptions of real-world situations"”and not as "academic" passages"”you'll start to make real progress.

Good luck.

[Black Hole]

"Below" means "the number (= income) is lower". So, poorer. More intense poverty.

Even if that phrase is completely unfamiliar to you, you can deduce this interpretation from thinking about the context of choice D.
If the meaning were "better off", then the situation clearly would not spur the government to RAISE pension handouts! So, it must mean the opposite.

Got it! Thanks Ron!
[b]But I think you forgot to answer my second question:
[/b]

2. If the premise didn't mention"Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible", can "C" be right then?

will be very glad if you answer the BOLD sentence.
Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

why do you think the passage specifically mentions that 'Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible'?

[RonPurewal]

more generally—
you're onto something here, but you're not thinking about it constructively.

• DO NOT think about 'If the passage didn't say xxxx....'
...because it does.
why waste your time?

• instead, think about strategy.
here, the take-home point is this:
VERY often, an answer choice says something that might otherwise bear on the situation, BUT IS SPECIFICALLY MADE IRRELEVANT by some statement in the passage.

that ^^ is a very common feature of wrong answer choices—and it's also an important key to understanding how the problems work.
as i've stated on this forum many times, the wrong answers are NEVER wrong for 'vague' or 'nit-picky' reasons. rather, they're wrong for reasons that are clearly delineated and precise.
this is one such (VERY precise) way to create wrong answer choices: make them say something that's specifically ruled out or made irrelevant by a statement in the passage.

[NitinG177]

Hello Ron,

I want to clarify the meaning of one statement in the stem .

".....the government of Runagia decided two years ago to increase by 20 percent the government-provided pension paid to all ......."

So , assuming that:
Total pension fund allocated before this increment were = USD 1000
after the increment the new fund now = USD 1200 ( 20% increase)
( and now this extra USD 200 would be distributed to each retired personnel in proportion to his earlier pension )

OR ..

whatever the amount each person was getting , would now be 20 % more than before ?

I know this issue is trivial but want to clarify the meaning that the sentence structure puts forth .
that is how to use the sentence structure to obtain the unambiguous meaning ?

Thanks,
Nitin.

[RonPurewal]

if you are thinking about anything that is anywhere close to this level of subtlety, then... well, no.
no no no.
don't go there.

remember, every CR problem will have one correct answer and four COMPLETELY wrong answers.

if you see any value in considering distinctions as fine-grained as this one, then there are two major problems:
1/ in the problem at hand, you're missing some MUCH bigger, MUCH more fundamental issue,
2/ more generally, you haven't completely absorbed how CR works (see the boldface point above).

[RonPurewal]

So , assuming that:
Total pension fund allocated before this increment were = USD 1000
after the increment the new fund now = USD 1200 ( 20% increase)
( and now this extra USD 200 would be distributed to each retired personnel in proportion to his earlier pension )

OR ..

whatever the amount each person was getting , would now be 20 % more than before ?

also, (unless i am misunderstanding what you wrote) this is a non-difference anyway. these are two ways of describing exactly the same outcome.

if the overall pot is increased by %20 and then everyone's share is increased proportionately, then ... well, everyone will get a %20 increase.

but, again, this is the verbal section, so this discussion shouldn't even be happening in the first place.

[xyza241]

parthian7 wrote:
RonPurewal wrote:(e) does a splendid job of this. if the elderly's income is supplemented by their children - up to a FIXED amount ("a comfortable living") - then it makes absolutely no difference how much pension those elderly people are receiving, as long as the pension is less than "a comfortable living". in other words, their children are just going to pay the difference anyway.


I picked E too but by process of elimination. Still not fully convinced by it though..just sounded less bad than the other choices.

Ron, what makes you assume that pension will still be less than "a comfortable living" even after the 20% increase? In other words, what if the increase eliminates the need to get support from the children?

Let's say an elderly couple used to get 2000 rungs (Runagia's currency) each month, while they'd need r2250 to make a comfortable living. E says the children would typically pay the difference (r250). However, now they get r2400 (150 more than what they need)..so the raise covers their needs and they don't need to get any money from their children anymore..

Thanks


you can't just hypothesize a random event/possibility, and then proceed to construct an argument that is based exclusively on that event/possibility.
in other words, you have an argument here that starts with "what if..." -- which means that it is, well, not actually an argument. it's just a hypothesis, which can be completely collapsed by the symmetric counterargument: "well, what if NOT...?"

the only time you're allowed to hypothesize events/possibilities is when those events/possibilities are very clearly the MOST likely, practically certain, outcomes according to simple common sense. that is definitely not the case with this particular supposition.
here is an example of what i mean:
let's say that apple suddenly starts making ipads only in the color red. in this case, there is no common-sense outcome -- i.e., there is no obvious reaction that consumers will (or won't) have here. therefore, you cannot start your reasoning with something like "what if people are willing to pay more for a red ipad?" or "what if people don't want to buy red ipads?", because those are essentially random suppositions.
on the other hand, let's say that the government of a certain state decides that the penalty for speeding on freeway should be twenty years in prison (and that this penalty should actually be enforced). in this case, there's no "what if...", because, under such circumstances, people WILL start driving more slowly on the freeway. so in that kind of case you could go ahead and construct an argument on that particular supposition.
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete fare domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
– Yves Saint-Laurent

Hi Ron,

I had hypothesized almost the same scenario which parthian7 had. And yeah many a times my hypothesis leads me to incorrect answer choice and yeah I do want to mitigate this issue. Further, is it safe to take it as a rule of thumb what you have mentioned regarding in what cases we can hypothesize and in what cases we shouldn't?
However, even after assuming what you are saying is correct that hypothetical scenario shouldn't be applied in this case, I am still not able to see how the fact that most/many elderly people will, even after 20 percent increase in their pension, still earn below their comfortable living income so that they would require the help of their children ? What I mean to say is that since you are saying that both what if and what if not scenarios are collapsed by symmetric counterargument or are equally probable in this case then how can we say that most likely scenario in this case can be that the elderly people will be earning below the comfortable living? Please help and explain.