Logic - HSPT Language Skills

Just follow the logic of the strange expressions. Since Bob is a creep, he is also a ring-rang. Now, all zip-doodles are mishmashes. Thus, some ring-rangs are mishmashes. Thus we can say that all creeps are ring-rangs, some of which are mishmashes. Thus, some creeps are mishmashes.

For this question, you cannot infer anything specifically, for being "well-known" does not tell you one way or the other anything specifically about Thomas' sales. He might be well known because he is a very, very bad author or a controversial one. This would not lead to any sales necessarily. Thus, you need to choose the very boring but most correct, "None of the others."

Be careful! This does not say that the strong will necessarily be victorious. It says only that if someone is victorious, that person must be strong. The language is a bit reversed, but it only communicates that sense. Now, if Thomas is hardheaded, he is also strong, as can be concluded from "All hardheaded people are strong." Beyond this, we cannot say anything more conclusive than he could be victorious since he has the necessary but insufficient characteristic of being strong.

First, let's analyze the sentence about the purchase of the stallion. Paula forced her husband to buy an animal that is expensive to keep. Now, based on the second sentence, all such purchases lead only to one of two outcomes: poverty or a family breakup. Since they remained married for the rest of their lives, we must say that the "other option" was all that held, namely that they lived in poverty. In any case, this is what can be concluded from the statements provided.

Let's rewrite this in a semi-mathematical manner, using the following shorthand:

E: (Books read by) English Majors

A: (Books read by) Anthropology Majors

CS: (Books read by) Computer Science Majors

B: (Books read by) Biology Majors

We know the following:

(1) E > A

(2) CS < B

(3) B < E

Now, we can combine (2) and (3):

CS < B < E

Let's rewrite that:

E > B > CS

Now, while we know that E > A, we cannot say anything about the relative position of A. It could be all the way below the computer science majors, it could be between biology and computer science, etc. None of the answers are acceptable.

Let's rewrite this in a semi-mathematical way:

C: Chemistry difficulty

PS: Political science difficulty

PH: Physics difficulty

B: Biology difficulty

We know the following from our prompt:

(1) C > PS

(2) PS < PH (or: PH > PS)

(3) PH > B

However, note that we cannot really say much else. We do not know the relative positions of biology and political science, except that they are easier than physics. Likewise, while we know that chemistry is harder than political science, we cannot say anything about its relationship to physics. (Likewise, this means that we cannot say anything about its relationship to biology). Thus, the answer is "none of the others."

This question is meant to trick you. Learn to pay close attention to details. If Mary is a banker, all that we could say is that she has a greater chance (not necessity) of eating pork chops than would someone who is an accountant. We cannot say anything about the relationship between bankers and the water-drinking of accountants or any others. Thus, the only acceptable answer is "none of the other answers."

Let's use symbols from math to help us understand this:

(1) Jeremy is taller than Jean: Jeremy > Jean

(2) John is shorter than Jeremy: John < Jeremy

This could be rewritten: Jeremy > John

Thus, we know that Jeremy is taller than Jean and John; however, we do not know anything about the relationship between John and Jean.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this.

(1) Thomas is smarter than Luca: Thomas > Luca

(2) Luca is smarter than John: Luca > John

We could string these together as well:

Thomas > Luca > John

John is not smarter than Thomas; therefore, this is false.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this.

(1) Baruch is weirder than Frederick: Baruch > Frederick

(2) Frederick is weirder than Arthur: Frederick > Arthur

These can all be combined to give us:

Baruch > Frederick > Arthur

It is indeed the case that (3) Baruch > Arthur.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. "Greater than" (>) will mean "more known," and "less than" (<) will mean "more unknown."

(1) Godfrey is more unknown than Henry: Godfrey < Henry

This could be rewritten: Henry > Godfrey

(2) Henry is better known than Giles: Henry > Giles

Thus, we know that Henry is more known than both Giles and Godfrey; however, this does not tell us anything about the relationship between Giles and Godfrey. Therefore (3) is uncertain.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. "Greater than" (>) will mean "has more fun," and "less than" (<) will mean "has less fun."

(1) Teddy has more fun than Jack: Teddy > Jack

(2) Franklin has less fun than Jack: Franklin < Jack

This could also be written: Jack > Franklin

Therefore, we could string all of these together into:

Teddy > Jack > Franklin

Therefore, (3) Teddy > Franklin does hold.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. “Greater than” (>) will mean “taller,” and “less than” (<) will mean “shorter.”

(1) Andrew is taller than Abraham: Andrew > Abraham

(2) Abraham is shorter than Charles: Abraham < Charles

This could be rewritten: Charles > Abraham

Another way of looking at these two would be:

(1) Abraham < Andrew

(2) Abraham < Charles

This tells us that Abraham is shorter than Andrew and Charles. It tells us nothing about the relationship between Charles and Andrew.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. “Greater than” (>) will mean “more difficult,” and “less than” (<) will mean “easier.”

(1) Physics is more difficult than chemistry: Physics > chemistry

This could be rewritten: Chemistry < physics

(2) Chemistry is easier than philosophy: Chemistry < philosophy

Therefore, this tells us that chemistry is easier than the other two subjects. However, it does not tell us anything about the relationship between philosophy and physics.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. “Greater than” (>) will mean “harder to drive in,” and “less than” (<) will mean “easier to drive in.”

(1) It is easier to drive in snow than it is in ice: snow < ice

(2) It is harder to drive in snow than in rain: snow > rain

This could be rewritten: rain < snow.

All of these could be combined to give us: rain < snow < ice.

This means that rain is indead easier to drive in that ice.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. “Greater than” (>) will mean “runs more quickly,” and “less than” (<) will mean “runs more slowly.”

(1) Robert runs more quickly than Nicole: Robert > Nicole

(2) Nicole runs more quickly than Fred: Nicole > Fred

This could give us a combined statement:

Robert > Nicole > Fred

Now, (3) could be rewritten: Fred < Robert. This is the same thing as Robert > Fred, which we do see above as being true.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. “Greater than” (>) will mean “more efficient than,” and “less than” (<) will mean “less efficient than.”

(1) Nuclear power is more efficient than coal power: nuclear > coal

This could be rewritten as: coal < nuclear

(2) Coal power is less efficient than gas power: coal < gas

Thus, we are told that coal is less efficient than both nuclear and gas; however, we are told nothing about the relationship between nuclear and gas power.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. “Greater than” (>) will mean “more on the road,” and “less than” (<) will mean “less on the road.”

(1) There are more cabs than trucks on the roads in New York City: cabs > trucks

This could be rewritten as: trucks < cabs

(2) There are more motorcycles than there are trucks on the roads in New York City: motorcycles > trucks

This could be rewritten as: trucks < motocycles

Thus, we are actually only being told something about trucks—there are fewer of them than both cabs and motorcycles (in New York City). Thus, we cannot say anything about the relationship between the number of cabs and the number of motorcycles.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. “Greater than” (>) will mean “more frightening,” and “less than” (<) will mean “less frightening.”

(1) Gremlins are more frightening than ogres: gremlins > ogres

(2) Skeletons are less frightening than ogres: skeletons < ogres

This could be rewritten as: ogres > skeletons

All together, we can say:

gremlins > ogres > skeletons

Therefore, it is indeed the case that gremlins are more frightening than skeletons.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. “Greater than” (>) will mean “has a greater salary than,” and “less than” (<) will mean “has a lower salary than.”

(1) George has a greater salary than John: George > John

(2) Filbert has a lower salary than George: Filbert < George

This could be rewritten as: George > Filbert

This means that we are being told that George has a greater salary than both John and Filbert; however, it tells us nothing about the relation between these latter two men.