When the manufacturers in a given country are slower to adopt new technologies than their foreign competitors are, th...

Naz October 27, 2014

You can access the video explanation for this question by pressing the "play" button on the screen.

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

ridgalino November 12, 2014

Are the explanations for the answers to logic games supposed to be in video format? All I get is the audio and it's difficult to visualize what the instructor is writing on his/her paper. Also the instructors refer to pages when presenting a lesson. Was there supposed to be a workbook of some sort that I am supposed to be following along on?

Naz November 12, 2014

We are aware of the issue with only audio in the videos. Our developers have just sent an update out so the issue will be fixed within the next few days. So sorry for the inconvenience!

When you purchased the course, we sent you a "Welcome Packet" on October 14th, 2014 that has a pdf of all the lessons in the course. That is what Mehran is referring to in the lecture. You can print it out and follow along.

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

ridgalino November 12, 2014

I assume the update also fixes the problem with the app crashing when selecting the game setup option?

Naz November 12, 2014

Yes that will be fixed in this update, as well!

ridgalino November 12, 2014

I looked through all of my email including my trash and I never received the welcome packet. Is there a link to the PDF or can you email it to ridgalino@me.com?

Naz November 13, 2014

No problem. We are sending it over again right now!

ridgalino November 17, 2014

I was having a problem with either/or statements so I went back through the lessons from the beginning and I think I found the route of my problem. Why on either/or statements why can both x and y be possible? Take the following example:

At the fork in the road either turn left or turn right.

If Left than not right
If Right than not left

You can't go both left and right but you have to choose one.

Naz November 22, 2014

Let's look at the following example: Either X or Y

We diagram this:

If not X, then Y

not X ==> Y
not Y ==> X

In this scenario we can have either X or Y or we can both.

Now, let's look at your example: At the fork in the road, either turn left or right.

This is actually an "either/or" statement with a "not both" statement. We can either turn left or right, but, obviously, we cannot turn both left and right. Thus, we diagram like so:

Either/Or:

not L ==> R
not R ==> L

Not Both:

L ==> not R
R ==> not L

So, we can only ever have one option as opposed to two, since we write out both the "either/or" diagram and the "not both." The above is an example of a scenario where exactly one is chosen, rather than both or none.

Let's look at one more example: The dress will either be red or green.

If the dress is not green, then it is red.

not G ==> R
not R ==> G

This is a clear "either/or" statement. The dress will either be red, or green, or it could be both with stripes.

Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Kyra August 22, 2018

What is the answer to this question??

Anita August 22, 2018

Hi @Kyra the answer is E. Is the answer not showing up for you, or are you needing help with how to get there?

Mariana January 23, 2019

I am not sure why the answer is not B for question #24. If I have the question set up correctly, then you can use the transverse property to create a logic chain that would make B the correct answer.

Ravi February 13, 2019

@Mariana,

Happy to help.

The diagramming of the stimulus gives us

manufacturers slower to adopt tech - >production costs fall more slowly

production costs fall more slowly - >country can't lower prices as rapidly

country can't lower prices as rapidly - >country gets squeezed out of
the global market

all of these statements link up together

manufacturers slower to adopt tech - >production costs fall more
slowly - >country can't lower prices as rapidly - >country gets squeezed
out of the global market

The contrapositive of this is that if the country doesn't get squeeze
out of the global market, then the manufacturers of this country will
have adopted new technologies as fast as other countries

You asked about (B).

(B) says, "If manufacturers in one county have been squeezed out of
the global market, this shows that their foreign competitors have
adopted new technologies more rapidly than they have."

The problem with (B) is that this is the converse of the conclusion we
arrived at once we linked up all of the conditional chains together.

The conditional statements link up to form

manufacturers slower to adopt tech - >country gets squeezed out of the
global market

(B) is mistakenly confusing (and switching around) the necessary
condition for the sufficient condition and vice versa. This is
incorrect logic.

(E) says, "If a country's manufacturers can lower their prices as
rapidly as their foreign competitors can, this shows that they adopt
new technology at least as fast as their foreign competitors do."

This is the contrapositive of part of the conditional chain we linked up.

Original chain: manufacturers slower to adopt tech - >production costs
fall more slowly - >country can't lower prices as rapidly - >country
gets squeezed out of the global market

The contrapositive of chain: country doesn't get squeezed out of the
global market - >country can lower prices as rapidly - >production costs
do not fall more slowly - >manufacturers adopt tech just as fast as
other countries

(E) is the contrapositive of the first two conditional statements of
the chain. This is our correct answer choice.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!