2014 UMAT study group on Skype (1 Viewer)

[KB161097]

any one interest to form a group (Skype ) so we can study and share the tip?

 

[frozenfriend]

I totally am! Or even just to chat about how the umat sucks and rage to each-other.
I'll message you my skype info if you're still keen.

 

[fatassmcfat]

can we discuss q's on this thread as well?

Rumpkins are always Bumpkins, Lumpkins are sometimes Crumpkins, and Crumpkins are either Bumpkins or Dumpkins. Based on this information, which of the following statement is/are true?

I. A Bumpkin cannot be a Lumpkin
II. A Dumpkin is always a Crumpkin
III. A Lumpkin can be a Rumpkin
IV. A Rumpkin can be a Dumpkin

A I,II and III only
B I and IV only
C III and IV only
D III only

Tell me what you guys get cause I still dont believe the answer/reason is right

 

[iStudent]

edit: I think it's C (III and IV only)

 

[QZP]

My answer C Just realised it as iStudent did haha /edit

 

[Chris100]

D
A rumpkin cannot be a dumpkin

 

[iStudent]

I thought it was D at first as well, but here is my (probably wrong) logic:
Not all bumpkins are crumpkins.
We know that those bumpkins that are crumpkins cannot be dumpkins (since crumpkins are *either* dumpkins or bumpkins so cannot be both)
however, those bumpkins that are not crumpkins have no restrictions on being dumpkins
therefore bumpkins can be dumpkins
and by the same logic, a rumpkin can be a dumpkin

 

[KB161097]

Sorry guy, I'm drop out as I has some person issue. Good luck all

 

[RG11]

Im in!

 

[fatassmcfat]

The answer is C...good work
I also thought it was D (and still do) cause it says Crumpkins are EITHER bumpkins or Dumpkins....so youd think all the Bumpkins (which are Crumpkins) are the end of it, but I guess the examiners see the Crumpkins are not strictly divided into Bumpkins OR Dumkpins but can be both...
NYAAAHHH

 

[Carrotsticks]

The answer is C...good work
I also thought it was D (and still do) cause it says Crumpkins are EITHER bumpkins or Dumpkins....so youd think all the Bumpkins (which are Crumpkins) are the end of it, but I guess the examiners see the Crumpkins are not strictly divided into Bumpkins OR Dumkpins but can be both...
NYAAAHHH

I don't agree with C being the answer, I think it is D. Let's follow the logic here.

R <--> B.

Now we know that C --> B or D, which implies that B and D are mutually exclusive. In other words, if something is B, we know it immediately CANNOT be D.

Now, since R <--> B, and B =/= D, then R =/= D.

 

[vikavish]

These inaccurate questions are hastily thrown together by med students. Don't expect them to always be valid.

Either way UMAT is more time management, because these questions are honestly not that hard. But you only get a minute or so to get an answer and move along.

 

[bangladesh]

Either way UMAT is more time management, because these questions are honestly not that hard. But you only get a minute or so to get an answer and move along.

lol, some questions in the umat are designed so that only 2-8% of candidates can answer them.. please don't judge the difficulty of umat when you haven't even taken the exam.

 

[kcwm]

I don't agree with C being the answer, I think it is D. Let's follow the logic here.

R <--> B.

Now we know that C --> B or D, which implies that B and D are mutually exclusive. In other words, if something is B, we know it immediately CANNOT be D.

Now, since R <--> B, and B =/= D, then R =/= D.

The answer is C, a bumpkin doesn't have to be a crumpkin.

 

[Carrotsticks]

The answer is C, a bumpkin doesn't have to be a crumpkin.

Yes, that is true. However, that is not relevant to answering the problem. My argument had no mention of B --> C.

 

[kcwm]

I should have read the question properly before your argument, II means that your argument is fine so I apologise. However, after reading the question properly your inference about 'either bumpkin or crumpkin' implying mutual exclusivity is, at least in my opinion, not correct. It would have to say 'but not both' for you to be able to take that implication. Perhaps the word 'either' does imply this, but I don't think so.

Now we know that C --> B or D, which implies that B and D are mutually exclusive. In other words, if something is B, we know it immediately CANNOT be D.

C -> B or D (if we take this as an exclusive or) does not imply that B and D are mutually exclusive traits, just mutually exclusive for anything with the trait C, which they must have because of II which I missed (sozza). This was why I mentioned the B don't have to be C.

But you're probably right and 'either' does imply mutual exclusivity, I think the word is too ambiguous to know whether it means B v D or not, so yeah...

 

[iStudent]

Yes, that is true. However, that is not relevant to answering the problem. My argument had no mention of B --> C.

Maybe you can explain how my explanation is wrong?
Btw just to add "Crumpkins are either Bumpkins or Dumpkins" does not mean all bumpkins are also crumpkins (the logic doesn't work the other way). It's not an 'iff' relation as you so put it in the maths seminar xd. Unless i'm mistaken ...... (which I think I am lol)

 

[kcwm]

Because all D are C, and all R are B, and C are B or D.
The question is can an R be a D. Every member of D is a member of C. Every member of R is a member of B.
The only way for the members of R and D to overlap is if B and D are not mutually exclusive, so it depends on the interpretation of the OR in the question.

 

[dena95]

I'M in i really need to join some course online any recommendations? or anyone wanna join a group course with me?

 

[valeroau]

I'm selling more than 700MB worth of UMAT Materials for $40. PM me or shoot me an email at valeroau@gmail.com if interested. Can provide samples.