TPA Practice Questions

In order to answer this logic problem, it might be best to start with a clear list of the constraints: - 12 hours = total hours available - 4 hours = total hours for walking - Minimum 4 art or architecture activities during the 2 days - Maximum 1 art museum per day - Minimum of 1 beach activity during the trip - Minimum of 1 shopping activity each day Now we can start with the activities the family has already planned to see what has been accomplished from the list and what has not. On Day 1, the family has already planned 11 hours of activities, and only 1 hour of walking. Therefore there is only 1 hour left to plan, and they could choose a walking activity if they would like. On Day 2, the family has planned 9 hours of activities with 4 hours of walking. This means that there are 3 hours they can use for activities but they cannot include walking. Using these 2 constraints, we see that the only activities possible for each day are the following: Day 1: Mirador De Colon, Montserrat, or La Pedrera Day 2: Montserrat Therefore, the family must choose the sightseeing trip to Montserrat on Day 2, leaving only Mirador De Colon and La Pedrera for Day 1. If we now look at the family preferences, we see that Mom already has her shopping on each day (Las Ramblas and Barri Gotico) and Little Brother has his beach activity on Day 2 (Nova Icària), but Big Sister only has 3 of her 4 art or architecture activities. Both Mirador De Colon and La Pedrera fit this category, but Dad will not go to more than 1 art exhibit on a single day, and the family will already visit Park Güell on Day 1. This means that they cannot visit La Pedrera as well. Therefore, the family will visit Mirador De Colon on Day 1.

In order to answer this logic problem, it might be best to start with a clear list of the constraints: - 12 hours = total hours available - 4 hours = total hours for walking - Minimum 4 art or architecture activities during the 2 days - Maximum 1 art museum per day - Minimum of 1 beach activity during the trip - Minimum of 1 shopping activity each day Now we can start with the activities the family has already planned to see what has been accomplished from the list and what has not. On Day 1, the family has already planned 11 hours of activities, and only 1 hour of walking. Therefore there is only 1 hour left to plan, and they could choose a walking activity if they would like. On Day 2, the family has planned 9 hours of activities with 4 hours of walking. This means that there are 3 hours they can use for activities but they cannot include walking. Using these 2 constraints, we see that the only activities possible for each day are the following: Day 1: Mirador De Colon, Montserrat, or La Pedrera Day 2: Montserrat Therefore, the family must choose the sightseeing trip to Montserrat on Day 2, leaving only Mirador De Colon and La Pedrera for Day 1. If we now look at the family preferences, we see that Mom already has her shopping on each day (Las Ramblas and Barri Gotico) and Little Brother has his beach activity on Day 2 (Nova Icària), but Big Sister only has 3 of her 4 art or architecture activities. Both Mirador De Colon and La Pedrera fit this category, but Dad will not go to more than 1 art exhibit on a single day, and the family will already visit Park Güell on Day 1. This means that they cannot visit La Pedrera as well. Therefore, the family will visit Mirador De Colon on Day 1.

The conclusion of the argument is that the Dante 5000 is more reliable than the company’s other stone-cutting machines, and the premise is that there have been fewer customer complaints about the Dante 5000 than about the company’s other industrial stone-cutting machines over the last six months. This argument assumes a number of things: Do breakdowns in unreliable machines typically occur within the first six months? Have enough Dante 5000’s been sold to make a reasonable comparison with the other stone-cutting machines? Option A: The Dante 5000 is the most expensive stone-cutting machine produced by the company. The argument is not about cost. This is out of scope. Option B: There are other stone-cutting machines that are considered more reliable than the Dante 5000. The argument is only about this company’s stone-cutting machines. Other machines may be from other companies, so this is out of scope. Option C: The Dante 5000 performed very well in initial testing. The argument is about reliability measured in terms of breakdowns, not about performance. This is out of scope. Option D: Stone-cutting machines usually break down very quickly under industrial use if they are not reliable. - Strengthens This option directly strengthens the conclusion that the Dante 5000 is more reliable than the company’s other machines because it makes it more likely that six months would be enough time to see breakdowns if the machine were unreliable. Note that this statement does not plug all of the holes in the argument—it just makes this weak argument slightly stronger. Option E: Very few customers have purchased a Dante 5000. - Weakens This option directly weakens the conclusion by providing a good alternative explanation for the low number of customer complaints. If very few customers have bought the machine, then a small number of complaints could actually represent a high rate (percent) of complaints. This choice highlights the classic difference between absolute numbers and percents. Option F: The Dante 5000 employs a new technology that is more precise than that used by the company’s previous stone-cutting machines. The argument is concerned with reliability measured in terms of breakdowns, not about precision. This choice is out of scope.