Q5 - Most veterinarians, and especially those

[noah]

5. (C)
Question type: Infer
This question asks us to find an answer that we can prove to be FALSE according to the given statements. Looking at the statements, one should notice that the majority of them include the word "some", which only tells us that at least one member of a group has a certain characteristic. Since this argument contains so many different categories, it’s best to start by looking at the statements that are more restrictive. The final sentence definitively states that there is not one prominent veterinarian who is both seriously interested in biological science and does not have a special love for animals. Answer (C) is therefore impossible, since it proposes that there is a prominent veterinarian with those characteristics.

(A) is possibly true. There is no limitation on at least one veterinarian loving science more than individual animals. The inclusion of "individual" is a red flag.

(B) could be true since the only group that is restricted in their love for animals is prominent veterinarians who are seriously interested in biological sciences.

(D) is out of scope, and is therefore possible, since there is no discussion of the motivation of veterinarians at university research centers

(E) is out of scope, and is therefore possible, since the statements do not discuss the opinion of any veterinarian, let alone a non-prominent one.

[geverett]

Got this right timed, and wrong when I did it untimed =)

The key to this question is that the first sentence talks about vets in general and those at university veterinary research centers.

The second sentence then reverts to just talking about vets in general.

The third sentence then talks about prominent vets.

There are three groups of vets thus mentioned

1. Vets in general
2. Vets at university research centers.
3. Prominent Vets

[t_wm]

With POE I get the correct answer.
But I am not sure the logic chain in the last sentence:

seriously interested in biology + lack love for animals --> ~prominent vet.

and the contrapositive:

prominent vet. --> ~seriously interested in biology OR love for animals.

It looks like that what (C) shows could be true.

Can you please help clarify? Thank you.

[ptraye]

Noah, what does the inclusion of the word individual do to answer choice A? why is that word important?

[timmydoeslsat]

Noah, what does the inclusion of the word individual do to answer choice A? why is that word important?

Since this answer choice does not touch the idea of prominent vets, this is going to be impossible to prove from the "most" statements given.

This answer choice is attempting to make a relative comparison amongst two ideas which cannot be concluded as a must be false situation. We can have a situation where the vets love animals and love the bio sciences even more, and we are OK. We can even have vets totally dislike animals and totally despise bio sciences and we are consistent with the stimulus given. You couldn't be a prominent vet, but you still could be a vet.

[noah]

With POE I get the correct answer.
But I am not sure the logic chain in the last sentence:

seriously interested in biology + lack love for animals --> ~prominent vet.

and the contrapositive:

prominent vet. --> ~seriously interested in biology OR love for animals.

It looks like that what (C) shows could be true.

Can you please help clarify? Thank you.

(C) tells us that we get folks that are devoted/interested and do not feel love, and from your first statement, we know that if you have those two, you can't be prominent. But (C) suggests there are some folks with those conditions that are prominent.

Looks like you got turned around on what (C) is saying.

[noah]

Noah, what does the inclusion of the word individual do to answer choice A? why is that word important?

Since this answer choice does not touch the idea of prominent vets, this is going to be impossible to prove from the "most" statements given.

This answer choice is attempting to make a relative comparison amongst two ideas which cannot be concluded as a must be false situation. We can have a situation where the vets love animals and love the bio sciences even more, and we are OK. We can even have vets totally dislike animals and totally despise bio sciences and we are consistent with the stimulus given. You couldn't be a prominent vet, but you still could be a vet.

what he said

[marykatemoller]

I chose (B) because I was under the impression that "Most" + "Most" = "Some"


Most veterinarians have devoted interest to BS
+
Most veterinarians love animals

CANNOT = most veterinarians love animals and have an interest in BS

Can someone please explain!?

[rinagoldfield]

Hi Mary,

I chose (B) because I was under the impression that "Most" + "Most" = "Some"


Most veterinarians have devoted interest to BS
+
Most veterinarians love animals

CANNOT = most veterinarians love animals and have an interest in BS

Can someone please explain!?

You're right that we can't infer that "most veterinarians love animals and have an interest in biological science." (B) does not have to be true for the reasons you say--we only know that SOME vets like biology and love animals.

But COULD most of vets love both biology and animals? Sure! We just don't know for certain.

We aren't looking for what must be true on this particular inference question. We're looking for an answer choice that must be false. The four wrong answer choices on this questions simply do not have to be false. In other words, they COULD be true.

(B) does not need to be true, but neither need it be false. It could be true, and therefore is incorrect.

Hope that helps.
Rina