The word "SOME"
While it’s such a common word, we use it all the time in our regular language also.
This word has been responsible for a lot of confusion.
Today I’ll talk about the word some.
While it’s such a common word, we use it all the time in our regular language also.
This word has been responsible for a lot of confusion.
Typically, there are three confusions that arise.
Doesn’t some mean that we’re talking about a small number?
- Often when you read about some you come across language some could be any number from one to all the words, and some in a small number. That’s one confusion.
- The biggest one perhaps is how is the world all included.
- Then the third, what happens if the number is actually more than half?
That’s the word some convert to most.
What happens if the number is actually the total number or that’s the word some convert to all?
So a lot of confusion with regards to the word.
So I’ll try to address these concerns here.
First of all, the word sum can be associated with countable and non-countable things.
I’d like some water. So what?
That is not countable.
It’s not like I’d like one water right?
So first, let’s be clear about when primarily what we’re dealing with here is when we talk about countable things. For example, some people came to attend the party.
A number of people we can talk about one person, two people, three, and so on. So that’s mainly what we’re focusing on here.
Although the same logic will apply to non countable things also.
Now for countable things. The word sum basically means at least one.
That’s exactly what the word some means. At least one. That is it.
Now think about it. If someone asks me hey Anish, you had a party yesterday, how many people came?
And I answer, at least one person came.
What’s the sense that the other person might get? Based on my answer, at least one person came.
Not a lot of people showed up. But I realize all I actually said was that at least one person came.
So did I actually say that a small number of people came? No. All I said was at least one person came.
So maybe one came. Maybe two, maybe three, maybe five. But the sense that the other person might have got is that the number wasn’t big. So the same logic applies to the words some.
Also, if someone asks me how many people came to your party? I say, Oh, some people came.
The sense that the other person might get is that, oh, not a lot of people came.
Technically, all I said was at least one person. Now, of course, let’s say overall, I invited 20 people.
And out of 20 let’s eat in showed up. And probably I would not use this word.
And if a lot of people showed up, then probably if they asked me, how was the party, I wouldn’t use a word like at least one or a phrase like at least one person came. I’d probably say a lot of them came. Almost everyone came.
But I wouldn’t be wrong, even if I said at least one came that’s true.
The number of people who came to the party was greater than equal to one. That’s true.
So the word sum technically does not mean we’re dealing with a small number. Dislike the word. The phrase at least one doesn’t mean that we’re dealing with a small number. If I tell you X is greater than equal to one, does that mean X is close to one? No. X could be any value greater than one.
Same logic as the word some. Some doesn’t mean we’re dealing with a small number.
Next, how is the word ‘all’ included? That’s a big confusion.
Well, the same reasoning again. Some means at least one. So if I say at least one person showed up to my party, is it possible that all 20 showed up? Of course, it is.
If X is greater than equal to one , So again, if I say some people showed up to the party, that means at least one person showed up. That means any number greater than or equal to one shoulder. And that number would include.
So some does include all because all some means is at least one.
But what if the total number of people who came to the party is 11 more than half? Or what is the total number of people who came to the parties? 20. All then does the word some convert to most or all.
No, there’s no conversion happening there, no cases.
We know that at least one person showed up to the party. That is all.
So it’s not like now I’ll take these separate cases. Or if two people showed up, what if three showed up , No, I know that at least one person showed up. I lead with that information.
And that’s exactly the information I have. If I use the word sum instead of the phrase at least one.
So there’s no conversion happening.
There are no cases.
Whenever dealing with countable nouns.
Some people showed up.
Some people came.
I can simply replace the word some with at least one.
Now, one more confusion that happens sometimes is some people are some of my friends, I’m using plural friends, for example. So shouldn’t that start with two? No, I will not go with will not go by whether that term is plural or singular.
I’ll explain this using another example. At least one person showed up. So the word person here is singular.
So does that mean exactly one person showed up? No.
So maybe one, maybe two, maybe three. Not. So here I’m using a singular person.
Yet the number of people who showed up might be one or might be more than that.
The same logic.
Some people showed up. How many people showed up? The number might be one, or it might be more than one. Just because I’m using a plural. Some of my friends showed up, for example. Doesn’t mean that I’m necessarily talking about a plural number more than one. It could be one friend also who stood shoulder. I hope this video explains, at least to an extent, how to deal with the works.
GMAT Webinar with Anish – CR Some
This article is an outcome of that research. To get the most out of this article, try to answer the included questions on your own before you look at my explanations.
Let’s dive in.
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?
(E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.
So basically, let’s say earlier, the average annual income for employees with degrees was, $100.
And let’s say earlier, the average annual income for employees with no degrees was $50, in 1980.
So now in 1990, first of all, according to the first statement, do we now know what the figures would be?
No, we won’t know the exact figures.
But let’s say let’s say that the average for non degree holders goes to $70. Then, in that case, can we now say how much the average salary would be for degree holders? What would be that figure? Greater than 140? Greater than 120? No, we can actually figure out the exact figure and know that the difference has doubled. So what was the earlier difference? 100 – 50 was 50. Now that difference should become 100.
So this figure should now become one $70. Exactly. 170. Not more than 120. Not more than 140. Not more than 170. Either, exactly once, right, the difference has doubled. So earlier, the difference was 50. Now the difference is 100. So whenever we reading it’s essential that we understand exactly what the statement is saying. And this is a part of that. What has doubled the difference in average annual income sensitive. Alright, let’s continue. Some analysts have hypothesized hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income.
So what have some analysts said How have they explained this increase the doubling of difference?
They have said Oh, increased competition between employers for college degree holders drove up income for such employees. So basically, degree holders income went up, and that was responsible for the increase in the difference. That’s what some analysts are saying.
Okay, which of the following, if true most seriously undermines the explanation described above.
So what is the explanation? The explanation is what the analysts are saying that the increased competition for degree holders drove up income for such employees degree holders. And that was the reason for why the difference tablet.
Our job is to undermine that explanation. After I see the correct answer choice, I will believe less in that, oh, it was increased competition for degree holders that led to the difference increasing? Perhaps it was something else, that’s what I will start believing.
Okay, option II. During the 1980s, there were some employees, so there was at least one employee with no college degree who weren’t incomes comparable to the top incomes on by employees with a college degree. Okay, now, first, let’s do one thing. Let’s replace this word some with the word many. During the 1980s, there were many employees with no college degree who aren’t incomes comparable. Now, what impact does this statement have?
does it undermine the explanation?
Does it support the explanation?
Or does it have no impact?
Remember, what do we need to undermine the explanation?
What is the explanation? Oh, increased competition for degree holders would have led to the increased difference. That’s what we need to undermine. So first of all, let’s realize given that the difference has doubled the difference. Average incomes has doubled. Is it possible first of all, that many employees with no college degree and comparable incomes? Is that possible? Yeah, it’s possible, right? We talk about overall average.
So out of those big sets, some people could have very high salaries also. Right, while the others might have very low salaries because at which the overall average would be low. So that’s very much possible. So it’s not like oh, this statement is contradicting the passage. And anyway, we are given which of the following IS true, so anyway, will not question the answer choices themselves, we’ll look at the impact.
So anyway, some or many employees with no college degree can earn high incomes or incomes comparable to top incomes of degree holders also, that’s fine. Overall, what we’re discussing is why did the average double? So even if many non degree holders have high salaries or have salaries equal to degree top degree holders salaries, even then, why did the difference double dip the difference doubles? Because of the increased competition? Am I now doubting that? No. Right, as far as the explanation is concerned that the difference doubled, because of increased competition for degree holders. It’s not like I’m doubting that now. Any more than I was earlier. Right.
So as far as the explanation is concerned, the statement has no impact. With the word many evil, and then even if I removed the words, many if I go back to some, it’s still the same thing.
Now, why did I bring in the word many instead of some?
Because I find many times people reject answer choices.Talking about at least one employee. So that would anyway be irrelevant. No, second reason why this one has no impact is not that oh, they’re talking only about at least one employee. The reason why this answer choice has no impact is any way telling us that although the difference in the averages has doubled, there are quite a few people in the set with lower average also weren’t earning very high or equal to the top incomes of the other group. That’s all it is any way possible. Overall, the average can still double. Anyway, our job is not to undermine whether the average has doubled or not be careful. Our job is to undermine the reason behind the average doubling.
The reason ‘E’ is the given reason ,it is that competition So I have four degree holders. As far as that reason is concerned, I don’t learn anything new. This answer choice has no impact with the word some or the word men
Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding and each time school officials complained that the cuts would force them to reduce expenditures for essential services. But each time, only expenditures for nonessential services were actually reduced. So school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the mayor’s conclusion?
(B) Sufficient funds are currently available to allow the city’s schools to provide some nonessential services.
Each time school officials complained that the cuts would force them to reduce expenditures, expenditures for essential services.
For the past five years, the school has been cutting funding. And each time these officials complained, the cuts would force us to reduce expenditures for essential services. But each time only expenditures for non essential services were actually reduced. So each time there was a funding cut, actually only non essential services were reduced or expenditures for non essential services were reduced. So essential services did not see any impact of the funding cuts. So school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services.
By the way, how logical did you find this argument?
Does it make perfect sense?
That yeah, for the last five years, it hasn’t happened. Now also, not logical.
This one is very similar to this one is very similar to an argument I’ve had with a lot of my friends that, I always recommend, for example, you should wear a helmet while you’re riding a two wheeler.
And they’d be like, No, I haven’t worn one for the last so many times also. And I’ve never got into an accident, therefore and don’t need one. Just because it has doesn’t hasn’t happened in the past, doesn’t mean it will not happen in the future. Right?
That’s exactly what’s happening here. Also, over the last five years, there were no reduction in expenditures for essential services, although these guys were complaining. So this time, also, no problem. School officials can implement further cuts. And yeah, maybe till now they had that buffer, maybe they have run out of buffer now.
Now, which of the following if true most strongly supports the mayor’s conclusion? sufficient funds are currently available to allow the city schools to provide let’s do the same thing. Let’s replace the word some with the word many. sufficient funds are available to allow the city schools to provide many non non essential services. Does this one support the mayor’s conclusion?
It does, right.
Or if there are sufficient funds to allow many to provide many non essential services, then perhaps school officials can implement further cuts.
Now another thing to be clear about is we’re looking for support. We’re looking for something which increases my confidence, we’re not looking for something which confirms that oh, now for sure school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures? No, that’s not what we’re looking for.
We’re looking for something that supports that increases my confidence in the conclusion. And this one does that. Now, even if I remove the word many go back to some, which means at least one non essential service, even then this answer choice also supports, maybe it doesn’t support as much as the word many did.
But still, it’s still doing the same thing. There are sufficient funds to allow the city schools to provide at least one non essential service. Basically, there’s at least some buffer. That’s what this option is saying. And therefore it is supporting the conclusion.
One more time, is it confirming that therefore, for sure school officials can implement further cuts without the negative impact? No, it’s not confirming that for us, but we’re not looking for a confirmation either.
We’re looking for something that supports and this one does support. Therefore, even with the word sum, this answer choice is correct. So what we did for both these questions one asked us to look for or support when asked us to undermine, strengthen and weaken?
Basically, what we did was I asked you to first replace the word some with many. And then see in what direction is that statement, taking your confidence?
Is it increasing your confidence reducing your confidence or has no impact.
And then basically, in pretty much all cases, even if we then go back to the word some, from the word many, the direction will still remain the same.
If the statement with the word many was supporting, and the statement with the word some would also support, maybe the level of support would be slightly less, but that’s still fine, it would still support.
Similarly, if a statement with the word many has no impact, then the statement with the word some would also have no impact.
Right? So that’s why this is my recommendation on strengthen and weaken questions, it often makes sense. If you have an answer choice that has the word some to first think about what would happen if I replaced the word with many, so that you don’t fall into that? The deal about oh, it’s wrong anyway, because it’s talking about only one case.
First of all, some doesn’t mean one. Some means at least one greater than equal to one, what’s the upper limit? no upper limit.
So it could be a very large number also. So to to make sure that you’re not falling for that kind of trap. I recommend that you start with thinking about many and then come back once you understand the direction.
In order to reduce dependence on imported oil, the government of Jalica has imposed minimum fuel-efficiency requirements on all new cars, beginning this year. The more fuel-efficient a car, the less pollution it produces per mile driven. As Jalicans replace their old cars with cars that meet the new requirements, annual pollution from car traffic is likely to decrease in Jalica.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument‘?
(C) Some pollution-control devices mandated in Jalica make cars less fuel-efficient than they would be without those devices.
So the government has imposed minimum fuel efficiency requirements.
So all cars, now onward should have at least this much fuel efficiency minimum, at least this much, they can have more also, the more fuel efficient car, the less pollution it produces, per mile driven.
As the fuel efficiency increases, the pollution per mile reduces. As they replace their old cars with cars that meet the new requirements, annual pollution from car traffic is likely to decrease.
Okay, so the passage is an argument. Right?
Overall, the main point is in the last sentence, as people replace their old cars with the ones that meet the requirements. As people do this, annual pollution from car traffic is likely to decrease.
By the way, is the conclusion completely logical? Is it a certainty that annual pollution is likely to decrease as people replace cars? Why is it not a certainty?
But what if people drive more now because their car is more fuel efficient? Therefore, I’m going to go for long drives. Right? What if people overall drive more and therefore overall cause more pollution that’s also possible.
While the conclusion is still somewhat mild, because they’ve added the word likely, the conclusion is not annual pollution will really quickly decrease. But then even the likelihood I can question that is it likely that pollution will decrease? What if people start drinking driving more than perhaps it won’t decrease? plus more cars also, yes, that’s another point. Yes, no poor. What if more people start buying cars now? Cool. All right. Which of the following if true most seriously weakens the argument? Again, we’ll not worry about the word most. But then we’re looking for something that weakens the argument.
Let’s do the same thing again. Let’s replace the word ‘some’ with many, now the statement becomes- Many pollution control devices actually make the cars less fuel efficient.
Okay, so what? What are these pollution control devices? Remember, overall, what do the cars need to do, the government has imposed minimum fuel efficiency requirements, each car must have a minimum level of fuel efficiency, right, it can have more fuel efficiency than that, but a minimum level must be attained by each car. So even if there are some certain devices mandated by the country, which reduced fuel efficiency net Overall, these new cars will still meet the fuel efficiency level which is the minimum fuel efficiency requirement.
Right? If these devices make it more difficult, that’s fine. But these new cars will definitely meet the requirements no matter what. Maybe the devices are making it more difficult, they will manage that somehow I don’t know how they will manage but they will manage end of the day they will bring the fuel efficiency level to the minimum requirements level, at least, if not more.
So the argument remains exactly where it was. I don’t have more confidence in the conclusion. Either way, this answer choice has no impact with the word many or with the word some, it’s the same thing.
So even if there are some devices which have a negative impact on fuel efficiency, overall, there is a requirement on minimum fuel efficiency that requirements they will meet how they manage we don’t know but they will manage that somehow. And so the rest of the argument also logically follows, hence this answer choice is incorrect.
Mystery stories often feature a brilliant detective and the detective’s dull companion. Clues are presented in the story, and the companion wrongly infers an inaccurate solution to the mystery using the same clues that the detective uses to deduce the correct solution. Thus, the author’s strategy of including the dull companion gives readers a chance to solve the mystery while also diverting them from the correct solution.
Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
(C) Some mystery stories give readers enough clues to infer the correct solution to the mystery.
This is an inference question.
Supported by the information above. Now the direction is different.
Based on the passage above, is this answer choice supported or not?
Basically now for such questions I recommend that we start with thinking about can we infer if for example, we can infer options see based on the passage, then yes, it is certainly supported. If we can’t infer but still it is most probably correct or true, then also it is very highly supported.
But as a starting point, let’s think about can it be inferred? because if something can be inferred that means it is perfectly supported.
Now, what’s the statement saying?
For an inference question like this, we won’t replace some with men. That was to understand in strengthen, weaken the direction we would use but here things might change.
Here, I will take the some mystery stories to mean at least one mystery story. That’s what it means. But in my mind, I’ll just think of it as at least one.
At least one mystery story gives readers enough clues to infer the correct solution to the mystery.
Is this something that can be inferred?
So does at least one story, give readers enough clues to infer the correct solution?
That’s what we have to figure out.
Now, remember, the detective was able to figure out the solution using those clues. If at least one person – the detective, could figure out the solution using a set of clues, then, is the set of clues enough to infer the correct solution?
It is enough!
If even one guy can figure out the solution using those clues, that means those clues are enough.
Now whether we use them properly or not is a different matter.
But the clues are enough.
It’s not like oh, we need more clues.
Look, the detective use those clues to figure out the correct solution. That means that the clues are enough.
Now, does at least one mystery story give readers enough clues to infer the correct solution to the mystery. Yes!
We are given mystery stories as such that often have this construction. They have a brilliant detective and a dull companion. The dull companion figures out in an accurate solution. Using some clues and using the same clues the detective figures out the correct solution.
Since it often happens, I can for sure say that it happens at least once.
This one can be inferred since it can be inferred anywhere. Hence it is obviously, very strongly supported. So this answer choice is correct.
Ramirez: The film industry claims that pirated DVDs, which are usually cheaper than legitimate DVDs and become available well before a film’s official DVD release date, adversely affect its bottom line. But the industry should note what the spread of piracy indicates: consumers want lower prices and faster DVD releases. Lowering prices of DVDs and releasing them sooner would mitigate piracy’s negative effect on film industry profits.
The argument above relies on which of the following assumptions?
B. Some people who would otherwise purchase pirated DVDs would be willing to purchase legitimate DVDs if they were less expensive and released earlier than they are now.
This is what some guy named Ramirez is saying that pirated DVDs, which are usually cheaper than legitimate DVDs, and become available well before a film’s official dvd release date, adversely affect its bottom line will adversely affect the bottom line pirated DVDs. Right. And then we learn a lot about pirated DVDs, they’re usually cheaper and they become available a lot sooner than official ones, and all that adversely affect its bottom line.
whose bottom line?
What’s this word?
It’s referring to the bottom line of the film industry, indeed.
What does it indicate? Consumers want lower prices and faster DVD releases?
So basically, pirated DVDs impact the bottom line. And pirated DVDs are cheaper and they get released sooner than official DVDs. So the author is saying the industry should note. What does the spread indicate spread of piracy? It indicates that people want cheaper lower prices and faster DVD releases. lowering prices of DVDs and releasing them sooner. So the author is saying okay, do these two things, make them cheaper and release them sooner? lowering prices and releasing them sooner would mitigate piracy is negative effect on film industry profits?
If you do these two things, then the negative effect of piracy on profits would be handled would be mitigated. What is the negative effect on film industry profits basically affects the bottom line overall profits right now are lower because of piracy. So the author is saying that, okay, do these things, make the DVDs released sooner also make them cheaper also, then the overall negative impact of piracy would get handled?
At least to some extent.
Now, is this argument completely logical?
Does it make complete sense that if we lower prices and release them sooner, then the negative impact on profits will be mitigated?
Or do you think there are any logical gaps here?
So profits first of all is nothing but revenue minus costs.
So if the cost remains the same, the revenue goes up, then the profit will increase. If the revenue remains the same, the cost goes down then the profit will increase. So, if by releasing DVDs earlier, and at a cheaper price, do you think either of the cost factor or the revenue factor might get negatively impacted?
Yes, so just one very valid point.
Why do typically film industries release DVDs after a certain period, because they wait for the theatrical release to get over. And then after that they release the DVDs. So if they released DVD sooner, maybe overall, the revenue from the theaters, ticket sales would get reduced. So while they might have more revenue through DVDs, but they might have lower revenue through theaters now, and net overall revenue might still not be higher than before.
maybe overall, the profits might not increase, even if they do these two things. Because revenue off the theatrical releases might get negatively impacted.
So what we’ve been doing, whenever we come across an argument in the passage, the author is making some conclusion on the basis of something at that stage itself, we get into thinking about does it make complete logical sense? If not, why not right here? Also, does it make complete logical sense that lowering prices and releasing them sooner would mitigate the negative effect on profits? No, not necessarily, because of the reason we just discussed?
Now, let’s do one thing while anyway, all of you have the correct answer.
Yes, it is an assumption that much is done.
But still, let’s try to get some other learning out of it, at least. Let’s first look at the impact of the statement. Impact basically strengthens the argument because the argument has no impact. So tell me, tell me in the chat window, what do you think, does this statement strengthen, weaken or has no impact on the argument? Again, in case you’re not clear, you can still do the same thing? First replace some with many to understand the impact? You can try that.
Many people who would otherwise purchase DVDs pirated DVDs would be willing to shift. As long as these things happen. Yeah. So this one strengthens. And similarly, even with the word some it strengthens, maybe not as much as with the word many, but it’ still strengthens.
Okay, so for an assumption question, the first thing I recommend is to try and figure out whether it supports or not, at least, since it does, it does support now we’ll get into the negation.
We’ll do negation now to figure out what would happen if this were not the case. So what would be the negation of this option? For some people who would otherwise purchase pirated would be willing to shift. So would the negation be some people who would otherwise purchase pirated would not be willing to shift? Basically, add the word not here.
Would that be the negation?
No, that would not be the negation.
Basically, if I say let’s say, some people are taller than seven feet. Some people are taller than seven feet. And then someone says no, that’s not true.
What does that mean? Does that mean some people are not taller than seven feet? No. When the other guy is saying, Oh, that’s not true. He means no one is taller than seven feet. In other words, no one is taller.
So the negation is no one No person, not a single person who would otherwise purchase pirated DVDs would be willing to purchase legitimate DVDs if these things happen, no one would be willing to do this.
Now, in case no one is willing to switch, in case no one is willing to switch even if DVDs became less expensive and were released sooner, then does the arguments conclusion still make sense?
That lowering prices of DVDs and releasing would mitigate the negative effect?
No. Right?
If not a single person is going to switch even if we do these two things, then the whole exercise is futile, then there won’t be any benefit, or any positive impact on the profits
Which confirms for us that yes, this one is an assumption. The statement on its own strangles the negation completely destroys the logic of the argument.
So this one is correct.
On some hot days the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels, and on some hot days the wind blows into Hillview from the east. Therefore, on some days when the wind blows into Hillview from the east, the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
A. mistakes a condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog for a condition that necessarily accompanies unsafe levels of smog
B. fails to recognize that one set might have some members in common with each of two others even though those two other sets have no members in common with each other
C. uses the key term “unsafe” in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion
D. contains a premise that is implausible unless the conclusion is presumed to be true
E. infers a particular causal relation from a correlation that could be explained in a variety of other ways
On some hot days, the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels on some hot days, basically, on at least one hot day, the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels.
That’s what the word some means.
I’m not changing the meaning. Or at least one hot day. The wind blows into Hill view from the east. Okay. On at least one hot day, this happens and on at least one hot day this other thing happens.
Okay so, on at least one day when the wind blows from the east, the smog reaches unsafe levels. I think this one is a classic example in which perhaps the overall gap in the argument would be clearer after reading the argument itself. But the answer choices might still have confused.
So does the argument make logical sense?
Does the conclusion make sense that on at least one day, the east wind and smog levels will overlap? Yeah, so one way of thinking about it is let’s say these are all the 100 days.
First, they’re saying on at least one day, there’s too much smog.
And then on at least one day. There’s let’s just call it east wind. And then they’re concluding that on at least one day with east wind, there is too much smog.
Well, maybe there is some overlap between these two sets, or maybe there’s no overlap, So we see the logical gap just because it’s happening on at least one day and the other thing is happening on at least one day.
Is it necessary that there’ll be an overlap in those two things? Not necessarily. Maybe there is but it’s very much possible that there isn’t any overlap either.
So that’s the logical flaw in the argument. All right. Now, the reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument does what? Right so the question is also asking us to figure out the flaw which we understand but now, the job of still seeing which answer choice actually He says that remains.
Let’s go through the answer choices one by one, we will go through them patiently in that the argument, mistakes a condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog.
Now, let’s take a pause here. What is the condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog? hot days, right, even if I think of this condition to be hard days, or a hard day, whatever, right mistakes or condition that sometimes look at the wording, yep. Hard day sometimes accompany unsafe levels of smoke.
That’s true. Fine.
Let’s continue reading mistakes, this condition for a condition that necessarily accompanies unsafe levels of smog. So is there a condition that necessarily accompanies unsafe levels of smog? There isn’t even a condition like that. Is there anything Oh, if there’s too much smog, then for sure this other thing will also happen? No, there’s nothing like that.
Anyway. So anyway, there is no such thing which necessarily accompanies unsafe levels. That’s the first thing anyway, right in the passage, there is no such thing.
Not really. I’m now thinking that perhaps it was something bigger – an external factor – that caused the viewership loss. So, this one does support the network’s position.
Once again, is it possible that other organizations aired the same report? Yeah, it is possible. But, is it probable? It was not a major world event. It was a ‘controversial report’. I don’t think it is probable. So, this answer choice does indicate that an external factor was at play. And so, I believe more than I did earlier in the position that the complaints had nothing to do with the loss of viewers.
This answer choice is correct.
Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctor’s argument?
C) Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some at least one such as many herbs, some alternative medicines, basically, such as many herbs have been proven safe to consume, but have been also proven safe to consume some alternative medicines. And an example of such medicines which have been proven safe are many herbs.
Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, though there’s little proven evidence that oh, it works. This is the benefit. This is the medicinal effect.
Advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them.
So what’s going on here?
Though, there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect. So this little proof of the benefits of medical medicinal effect would be the benefit. Though this little proof of the benefit. The advocates of these herbs say that irrespective of that they should always be allowed to prescribe them.
Why? since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped by the use of these products. So there will not be any negative impact.
And who knows there might be some positive impact.
So what’s the harm? Go ahead, consume it. That’s what the author is saying.
Now, does this passage seem very logic completely logical to you?
Even though there’s no positive or no proven positive impact?
Because there’s no negative impact? Then we should prescribe? Because who knows? Maybe there will be a positive impact in any way there’s no negative.
Does the argument seem 100%? Logical to you? And then if not, why not?
That’s the question to think.
So one thing coming to my mind is that will people consume these herbs as an additional medicine, in addition to actual medicines that they should be consuming?
Or will they consume only this thinking that oh, this will solve my problem, this will cure my ailment.
So even if it doesn’t have a negative impact, but because the positive impact is not proven, maybe there is chance that the patient’s ailment doesn’t get cured.
So then it’s still a problem for the patient. Right? So I’m thinking that if the patient is going to choose between either or it’s either an alternative medicine or a regular medicine, and if because of choosing an alternative medicine, he doesn’t go for regular medicine, then it’s a problem.
If he’s taking it only as an additional thing that fine, I will anyway, take my regular medicines, plus, I will take this, so then it might be okay.
Let’s move ahead. now tell me which one of the following If true, ‘most’ seriously weakens the doctors argument? So we’ve understood the argument, we’re looking for something that weakens the argument.
Some patients or at least one patient may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
Again, this is a this is an impact question, strengthen or weaken.
So if it’s not Yes, straight away with the word sum. We can start with the word many, many patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients. Fine. Remember, what, what medicines are we talking about specifically? What medicines is the doctor saying that Oh, it’s okay if even if you prescribe those medicines, advocates of these herbs and what do we know about these herbs?
We know that some alternative medicines such as the many herbs have been proven safe to consume these herbs have been proven safe to consume while other alternative medicines might have dangerous side effects, these ones do not.
So now what is this option saying? Many patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines.
- Are they talking specifically about herbs here? No. This thing in general in certain medicines, many patients may have allergic reactions that have been tolerated so other patients might not have a negative impact. For allergic reactions, many patients might find herbs proven safe to consume. So would any way herbs be a part of these medicines?
No!
These would be other medicines right? This option is saying that even with the word many, many patients have allergic reactions to certain medicines.
And others tolerate them Doesn’t matter. Even if I let’s say get rid of all this, Many patients have allergic reactions to certain medicines. Can these medicines be herbs? No, because herbs have been proven safe.
So that’s why this answer choice has no impact. No impact.
So be it with the word many are back with the word some same thing still.
Same at least one patient may have allergic reactions to certain medicines.
Anyway those medicines won’t be these herbs because our herbs have been proven safe.
The word some is playing a part here.
While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects a few do some some what some alternative medicines, such as many herbs have been proven safe to while a few while some have problems others don’t have some others don’t have problems. That’s what the first sentence is saying.
What if now, we replace this word medicines with herbs, certain herbs.
Now, would this option be correct? This one is still wrong.
many herbs have been proven safe to consume. So then those herbs our herbs basically will not be a part of the certain herbs. Like those our herbs have been proven safe that means our herbs don’t give allergic reactions to anyone.
That’s what proven safe means.
So certain herbs would not include our herbs. I’m calling them our herbs now right our herbs not included.
So this one also has no impact.
Does your and my answer match? If not then why so?
What was your thinking?- Did you basically think that they are talking about our herbs here,
that those certain medicines include either is equal to our herbs or include or could include our herbs.
If that’s what you thought then you missed this bit. Right?
Or rather, you didn’t register this bit at some alternative medicines such as many herbs have been proven safe to consume. So they’ve been proven safe done.
Even if one person gets a serious allergic reaction, that means that thing would not be proven safe. So I won’t say something is safe.
Lets talk about Takeaways.
1. Read more carefully and take out precise insights.
2. Not comparing answer choices. That’s something I definitely recommend to everyone. That if you are still in a habit of deciding after comparing, get rid of that habit, that way, you will focus more on your reasoning and your reasoning will improve with time.
3. Some equals at least one.
Anish Passi
With over a decade of GMAT training experience, top 1 percentile scores on the CAT and GMAT, Anish is one of the most qualified GMAT coaches in India. He has founded and served as Director in two edu-tech startups in the past. An alumnus of IIM Ahmedabad and McMaster University, Canada, he strongly believes in the right way of learning, and in learning to grow and not just to get a score, an admission or a job. Anish offers private tutoring (online and in-person), and workshops for groups. His sessions are often sprinkled with jokes that only he finds funny (you've been warned). To connect with him, write to him at a@TheGMATCo.com