<p>Jamal has some coins in his pocket. Some of these coins are quarters, and none of the quarters in his pocket are dated earlier than 2000. Which of the following must be true?</p>
<p>(A) None of the coins in Jamals pocket are dated
earlier than 2000.</p>
<p>(B) Some of the coins in Jamals pocket are dated
earlier than 2000.</p>
<p>(C) Some of the coins in Jamals pocket are dated
2000 or later.</p>
<p>(D) Most of the coins in Jamals pocket are either
quarters or dated earlier than 2000.</p>
<p>(E) Most of the coins in Jamals pocket are not
quarters.</p>
<p>It is either C or E.</p>
<p>If some of these coins are quarters, the rest (most) must not be quarters. Answer E</p>
<p>But is ALL=SOME+MOST, or ALL=SOME+SOME ?</p>
<p>Since none of quarters are dated earlier than 2000, some of them must be dated later. Answer C.</p>
<p>It does not say, however, that quarters are dated at all: “…none of the quarters in his pocket are dated earlier than 2000…” Just that they are not old. Nothing about dating or evaluating their age.</p>
<p>To me this is an undefined question, what are your views on this one?</p>
<p>It’s a terrible question because it disadvantages people without much experience with quarters.</p>
<p>From the facts given, one cannot derive that C must be true. It is not stated that there are quarters that are dated 2000 or later, and it is not stated that all quarters are dated. If either of these statements were made, C must be true. But they were not.</p>
<p>But, Rickie, C does not say that some non-quarters in Jamal’s pocket are dated 2000 or later. C says that some coins in Jamal’s pocket are dated 2000 or later. And that is undeniably true.</p>
<p>Papyrus, my point is that we don’t need any information about coins that are not quarters.</p>
<ol>
<li>We know that there are some quarters.</li>
<li>We know that quarters are a kind of coin.</li>
<li>We know that no quarters Jamal has are dated before 2000, which is another way of saying that all of his quarters are dated 2000 or later.</li>
</ol>
<p>This is enough to tell us for sure that there are quarters, dated 2000 or later, in Jamal’s pocket, and since quarters are a kind of coin, we know there are some coins dated 2000 or later in Jamal’s pocket.</p>
<p>@ Sikorsky
I agree It’s just that this is not critical reading, this is math; the questions should be simpler, straight to the point. If they make these kind of questions, they should annul any obscurities, otherwise discussions like these will keep rising. </p>
<p>These aren’t the only confusing questions though. I’ve encountered more of those, will post more if recall any of them.</p>
<p>“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”</p>
<p>Albert Einstein</p>
<p>If you REALLY want to test my math skills, give me some logic-challenging exercises instead of arcane and holey question like above, because I am no 10th grader. I tend to see deeper problems than the obvious superficial ones.</p>
<p>Good thing we, students, do not design SAT questions We simply provide possible implications. And you, my dear teacher, despite being alone in this thread, keep conveying your ONLY truth, while we just hypothesize in this discussion, mainly because these things determine who goes to Ivies and who does not. To me it is important to find out the solution to the current problem and to move on to the next one, whereas to you the only objective is to prove your point. </p>
<p>Okay, I am moving on to do some more math exercises. Farewell, Teach ;)</p>
<p>My point was that the explanation, which you were given early in this thread, was correct. </p>
<p>I don’t think the question you posted is a very good one for the SAT, but it is far from unanswerable, and it is fair to expect that anybody who’s completed high-school geometry should be able to do it. (Except, perhaps, for students with reading issues.)</p>
<p>But there’s no information assuring us that quarters are dated at all. One could just as easily conclude “Quarters don’t have dates on them” as “So,e quarters are dated after 1999.” This means it is not true that “C” must be true.</p>
<p>There is a missing premise. </p>
<p>Basic high school geometry doesn’t seem to be an effective substitute for critical thinking.</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty obvious that quarters are dated. Whoever didn’t realize that was just over-thinking the question. As for the second one, it seems that the answer should be 180</p>
<p>1) The answer is clearly C. I don’t see how E must necessarily be true. Take some arbitrary value for the number of coins in his pocket and the number of coins which are quarters. Let’s say he has about 6 coins, 4 of which are silver. Now look at E:</p>
<p>(E) Most of the coins in Jamals pocket are not
quarters.</p>
<p>If 4 of these are quarters, 2 are NOT quarters and 2 != most of the coins.</p>
<p>Hopefully you get it… and my explanation isn’t bad.</p>
<p>2)</p>
<p>x + y = 180 (interior angles add up to 180)
x = 180 - y
x = 180 - 125
x = 55</p>
It’s just that this is not critical reading, this is math; the questions should be simpler, straight to the point. If they make these kind of questions, they should annul any obscurities, otherwise discussions like these will keep rising. </p>![http://i48.■■■■■■■.com/3451on4.png[/IMG]](http://i48.tinypic.com/3451on4.png%5B/IMG%5D){kind=link}
