29-07-09, 09:07 PM
Sab, how can we see your pic on FB if we aren't all friends? Don't cheat the SSDB, yo.
If God gives you lemons you should find a new God
MedEntry Wrote:The passage gives no information about the combined effect of a BAC of 0.10 and driving with a mobile phone. It cannot be assumed that this doubles the risk of having a crash - it could have less than double the effect or more than double the effect (option A). The passage states that having a BAC of 0.10 and speaking on the phone (whether handsfree or handheld) has a similar effect on the driver, and presumably a similar level of safety. Therefore option B is incorrect. Option C would be necessary for the results of the study to be valid, but is not necessarily true. Option D is supported by the fact that handheld and handsfree mobiles caused the same number of accidents. Note that option D is worded with less certainty than option C (‘the results suggest’).
MedEntry Wrote:Option D is the answer that can be concluded with most certainty from the passage. Since the inhabitants of Island R have not been exposed to mercury in drinking water, yet have a high incidence of Hobson’s Disease, it can be inferred that mercury in drinking water is not the only cause of the disease. Option A is incorrect. One example that may or may not suggest mercury is ‘safe’ is not enough to conclude that mercury in drinking water is ‘perfectly safe’. Option B is contradicted by the fact that ‘modern industry of any kind is unknown’ on Island R. Option C is explicitly contradicted by the passage, which states that mercury in drinking water occurs ‘only with certain types of industrial pollution’.