Set 5

Explanation

To determine the argument that weakens the statement, we need to understand the core issue presented in the text.

Text Analysis:

1. Fact: Egg demand increased by $10\%$.
2. Fact: Egg prices rose from Rp $26,300$ to Rp $27,050$.
3. Cause: Disrupted distribution (COVID-19) and potential influence from upstream production (low production).

The text builds an argument that the price increase is caused by high demand and supply constraints (distribution/production). An argument that weakens this must be a fact or statement that contradicts this cause-and-effect logic, particularly on the supply side.

Let's analyze each option:

Therefore, the statement that "The number of chicken farmers is increasing" weakens the suspicion that production issues are the cause of the price increase, or weakens the trend of rising prices itself due to potentially increased supply.

Thus, the argument that weakens the statement is the number of chicken farmers is increasing.

Explanation

To answer this question, we need to verify each option based on the data in the table. Remember, we are looking for the conclusion that is NOT TRUE.

Analysis of Options:

1. "The harvest area in 2018 was more than double the harvest area in 2016"

   • Harvest area 2016 = $2,407$ Ha.
   • Double that amount = $2 \times 2,407 = 4,814$ Ha.
   • Harvest area 2018 = $5,013$ Ha.
   • Since $5,013 > 4,814$, this statement is TRUE.

2. "Garlic production in 2018 was double the garlic production in 2017"

   • Production 2017 = $19,150$ Tons.
   • Double that amount = $2 \times 19,150 = 38,300$ Tons.
   • Production 2018 = $38,300$ Tons.
   • Since the values match exactly, this statement is TRUE.

3. "In the 2015–2017 period, the garlic harvest area decreased continuously"

   • 2015: $2,563$ Ha.
   • 2016: $2,407$ Ha (Decreased).
   • 2017: $2,146$ Ha (Decreased again).
   • There was a continuous decline, so this statement is TRUE.

4. "In 2017, there was a decrease in harvest area, production, and import of garlic"

   • Let's compare 2017 with the previous year (2016).
   • Harvest Area: $2,407 \rightarrow 2,146$ (Decreased $\checkmark$).
   • Production: $21,150 \rightarrow 19,150$ (Decreased $\checkmark$).
   • Import: $444,301 \rightarrow 556,060$ (INCREASED $\times$).
   • Since imports actually increased, the statement that all three decreased is FALSE.

5. "There was a continuous increase in the amount of garlic imports in the last two years"

   • The last two years in the table are 2017 and 2018 (comparing to previous years).
   • 2016 to 2017: $444,301 \rightarrow 556,060$ (Increased).
   • 2017 to 2018: $556,060 \rightarrow 582,995$ (Increased).
   • The trend is continuously rising, so this statement is TRUE.

In conclusion, the only statement that contradicts the table data is the option stating that imports decreased in 2017.

Thus, the conclusion that is not true is in 2017, there was a decrease in harvest area, production, and import of garlic.

Explanation

To find the most correct conclusion, we must compare each option with the information presented in the text.

Analysis of Options:

Therefore, the most appropriate conclusion that aligns with the text is that most stunting children are caused by malnutrition, as it corresponds to the keyword "Generally" in the text.

Thus, the most correct conclusion is most stunting children are caused by malnutrition.

Explanation

We need to analyze each statement to find the one that is least consistent (false) based on the table data.

Analysis of Factory Y Sales Increase

The increase in motorcycle sales at factory Y forms a second-level arithmetic sequence.

Factory Y sales data: $4.0, 4.6, 5.0, 5.2$.

Let's calculate the difference (increase) between years:

The first-level difference sequence is $0.6, 0.4, 0.2$. Next, let's calculate the second-level difference:

Since the second-level difference is constant ($-0.2$), it is true that Factory Y's sales data forms a second-level arithmetic sequence.

(Statement Consistent)

Analysis of Factory Z Sales Pattern

The increase in motorcycle sales at Factory Z forms a geometric sequence pattern.

Factory Z sales data: $0.4, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05$.

Let's check the ratio:

Since the ratio is constant ($\frac{1}{2}$), it is true that the data forms a geometric sequence.

(Statement Consistent)

Analysis of Factory Z Sales Decrease

One of the highest percentage decreases in motorcycle sales occurred at factory Z in 2015-2016.

Factory Z Decrease (2015-2016):

Other high decreases (e.g., Factory X 2015-2016):

Since $50\% > 31.6\%$, Factory Z's decrease of 50% is indeed one of the highest (the highest in this comparison).

(Statement Consistent)

Comparison of Factory Y Sales with X and Z

Motorcycle sales at factory Y are more than double the total sales of factory X and Z.

Let's calculate the total sales for each factory:

Sum of X + Z and its double:

Since $18.8 > 17.5$, this statement is correct.

(Statement Consistent)

Analysis of Factory X Sales Decrease

The highest percentage decrease in motorcycle sales at factory X occurred in 2014-2015.

Let's calculate Factory X's percentage decrease for each year:

From the calculations above, the highest percentage decrease occurred in 2015-2016 (approx. $31.6\%$), not 2014-2015.

(Statement NOT Consistent)

Therefore, the statement that is least consistent with the table is that the highest percentage decrease in motorcycle sales at factory X occurred in 2014-2015.

Explanation

We need to analyze the sales pattern of each factory to predict sales for 2017 and find the incorrect statement.

Analysis of Factory X Sales Trend

Factory X sales data: $2.5, 2.3, 1.9, 1.3$.

Let's look at the decrease differences:

The decrease grows larger by $-0.2$ each year. Thus, the decrease for 2017 is predicted to be $-0.8$.

Predicted X sales for 2017:

Difference in sales between 2016 and 2017:

The statements regarding X sales being 500,000 units and the difference being 800,000 units are TRUE.

Analysis of Factory Y Sales Trend

Factory Y sales data: $4.0, 4.6, 5.0, 5.2$.

Let's look at the increase differences:

The increase diminishes by $0.2$ each year. Thus, the increase for 2017 is predicted to be $0$.

Predicted Y sales for 2017:

The statement that Y sales are 5,200,000 units is TRUE.

Let's check the comparison with X sales in 2016 ($1.3$ million):

The statement that Y sales are four times X sales in 2016 is TRUE.

Analysis of Factory Z Sales Trend

Factory Z sales data: $0.4, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05$.

This pattern is a geometric sequence with a ratio of $\frac{1}{2}$ (halved each year).

Predicted Z sales for 2017:

The statement that Z sales are $250,000$ units is FALSE (it should be $25,000$ units).

Since the question asks for the statement that is incorrect, the prediction about Z sales is the answer.

Explanation

Let's summarize the sales data (in hundred thousands) into a table for easier comparison:

Based on the table above, we can conclude the following facts:

1. Total Sales: It is clear that Company C has the lowest total sales ($43.7$), while Company A holds the highest ($85.7$).
2. Trend Patterns: Almost all companies experienced fluctuations (ups and downs), except Company C, which consistently increased every month ($11.8 \to 14.9 \to 17$).
3. Spikes & Drops: The most drastic changes were actually experienced by Company D (a sharp drop from Jan to Feb, followed by a sharp rise to Mar), not Company B.

Therefore, the most accurate statement based on the data is that the lowest number of smartphone users is from Company C.

Explanation

Let's map the nutritional content of each fruit into a simple table:

The question asks for the incorrect possibility if a child eats a Papaya.

Based on the table above, if a child eats a papaya, they will get:

1. High water content.
2. Low carbohydrates.
3. No fat at all.

Therefore, the statement that "Some children get fat" is definitely false or impossible, because papayas contain no fat. Other statements might still be possible or relevant to papaya's content, but the claim of getting fat clearly contradicts the nutritional facts of papaya.

Explanation

Let's break down the logic premises into a document ownership table:

Analysis of Jakarta Residents:

1. Jakarta Residents are WNI: Therefore, all Jakarta residents must have a Birth Certificate.
2. Age of Jakarta Residents:
   • Some are $< 17$ years old (only have a Birth Certificate).
   • Some are $> 17$ years old (have a Birth Certificate and an ID Card).

Since there are Jakarta residents who are over $17$ years old (implied by "Some are under $17$", meaning the rest are over or equal to $17$), this group must possess both documents.

Therefore, the valid conclusion is that some Jakarta residents have a birth certificate and ID card (KTP).

Explanation

Let's analyze the logic of the key statement in the text:

"If consumption exceeds reasonable limits, the house electricity will automatically be cut off."

We can break this statement down into two propositions:

• $p$: Consumption exceeds reasonable limits.
• $q$: House electricity will be cut off.

The logical implication form is:

The question asks us to find the wrong conclusion. In mathematical logic, a statement that is false (contradictory) to an implication is its negation.

The formula for the negation of the implication $p \rightarrow q$ is:

Meaning: Consumption exceeds reasonable limits AND house electricity is NOT cut off.

This statement directly contradicts the premise provided in the text, making it the wrong conclusion.

Explanation

Let's break down the given premises:

1. Premise 1: Every bread contains carbohydrates and energy. (Applies absolutely to all bread).
2. Premise 2: Generally, bread is made from high-protein wheat flour.
   • The word "generally" indicates the majority, but not all.
   • Meaning: There is a small portion of bread that is not made from high-protein wheat flour (could be low or medium protein).
3. Premise 3: Factory X produces bread.

Conclusion Analysis:

Since Factory X produces bread, its products are part of the "bread" set. Based on Premise 2, since not all bread is made from high-protein flour, there is a possibility that the bread produced (including by Factory X as a bread producer) is of the type that does not use high-protein flour.

The option stating "Some bread from factory X is made from low-protein wheat flour" is the most logical conclusion because it accommodates the exception allowed by the word "generally" (some bread is not high protein). Other options like "All" are too absolute and contradict the nature of "generally".

Explanation

The relationship between the speeds of vehicles $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ is given by:

Next, we calculate the speed of vehicle $Z$ ($V_Z$). It is known that $Z$ travels a distance of $40$ km in $2$ hours.

After finding $V_Z$, we can determine the speed of vehicle $Y$ ($V_Y$):

Thus, the distance vehicle $Y$ can travel in $3$ hours is:

So, vehicle $Y$ can travel a distance of $15$ km.

Explanation

Let's break down this artificial language by examining its vocabulary and sentence structure. From the given information, we can identify the basic vocabulary: beeppz! means cobra, !meeongw is kitten, and beeppzpz! (with the extra -pz suffix) signifies many cobras.

Next, let's analyze the sentence yum ybeeppz! ong!meeongw which means kitten eats cobra. Notice that the verb yum (eats) comes at the beginning. The subject is kitten (!meeongw) marked with the prefix ong-, while the object is cobra (beeppz!) marked with the prefix y-.

Thus, the sentence pattern in this language can be formulated as follows:

We are asked to translate many cobras eat kittens. Here, the subject is many cobras (beeppzpz!) and the object is kitten (!meeongw). Let's construct the sentence following the pattern above:

1. Verb: yum
2. Object (kitten) with y- prefix: y!meeongw
3. Subject (many cobras) with ong- prefix: ongbeeppzpz!

So, the complete translation is yum y!meeongw ongbeeppzpz!.

Explanation

To determine the number of possible password arrangements, we can break down the problem by analyzing the possibilities for each digit position separately.

Position Analysis

Each position has specific criteria limiting the characters that can be used. Here is the breakdown of possibilities for each position:

Total Calculation

Based on the multiplication principle (counting slot rule), the total number of password arrangements is the product of the possibilities in each position.

So, there are $108$ possible password arrangements.

Explanation

To determine how long it will take for the water to run out, we first need to calculate the volume of water in the tank and then divide it by the leakage rate.

Known Data

Here are the dimensions of the water tank (cylinder) converted to decimeters (dm) to match the flow rate unit ($\text{dm}^3$):

Volume Calculation

The volume of a cylinder is calculated using the formula $V = \pi r^2 h$.

Time Calculation

The time required for the water to run out is the volume divided by the leakage rate.

Next, we convert the time from minutes to hours and minutes:

So, the water will run out in $41\text{ hours } 15\text{ minutes}$.

Explanation

The most accurate statement according to the text is that the head of state requested concrete and quickly implementable input.

This is explicitly supported by the direct quote in the text:

"I want inputs that are more concrete, real, and can be quickly implemented so that they can provide a good economic effect for our country..."

Analysis of Other Options

Here is why the other statements are incorrect:

• Statement on Deficit: The text states the trade balance deficit is $2.564$ billion and the current account deficit is $6.966$ billion. Let's check the "more than three times" claim:

  $$3 \times 2.564 = 7.692$$

  Since $6.966 < 7.692$, the current account deficit is actually less than three times the trade balance deficit.

• Statement on Location: The text does not mention the meeting taking place at the "State Palace" or any specific summons.

• Statement on Trade War: The phrase "will never subside" is an exaggeration not found in the text.

• Statement on Synergy: Synergy is mentioned to face "economic challenges in the future" in general, not specifically just for problems resulting from the trade war.

Explanation

The statement that is the most incorrect is Although Indonesia's GDP growth plummeted to $4.88$ percent, Indonesia's economic condition remained within encouraging limits.

The text states that in $2015$, economic growth reached its lowest point and plummeted below $5$ percent.

The use of the words "lowest point" and "plummeted" has a strong negative connotation, which contradicts the claim that the condition "remained within encouraging limits".

Analysis of Other Options

• Option on 2016 Trend: Matches the text ("In $2016$, economic conditions turned around...").
• Option on 2018 GDP: Matches the text (GDP Rp$14,837.4$ trillion is close to Rp$15$ thousand trillion, GDP per capita Rp$56$ million).
• Option on 2015 Lowest Point: Matches the text (lowest point, did not reach $5$ percent).

Explanation

The most true statement is The contribution of the household consumption sector to Indonesia's economic growth will not reach $2.74$ percent.

Based on the text, household consumption growth of $5.05$ percent contributed $2.74$ percent to economic growth.

Logically, if household consumption growth decreases or does not reach $5$ percent (lower than $5.05$ percent), then its contribution to economic growth will also be smaller than $2.74$ percent.

The relationship between sector growth and its contribution is directly proportional. If growth slows down, its contribution will decrease.

Explanation

The most appropriate statement is During those six years, Indonesia's economic growth in $2013$ was always higher than in the following years.

If we observe the graph, the year $2013$ has the highest bar with a value of $5.58$ percent. This value is never surpassed by the following years, which only range from $4.88$ to $5.17$ percent.

Graph Trend Analysis

The graph shows an imperfect "V" pattern:

• Decreasing from $2013$ to the lowest point in $2015$ ($4.88$%).
• Increasing back (improving) from $2015$ to $2018$.

This automatically invalidates the statements that the economy is "always declining" or "never declining". Furthermore, the decline difference from $2014$ to $2015$ ($0.13$%) is actually smaller than the increase in the following year ($0.15$%), so the other options are also incorrect.

Explanation

The statement that corresponds best with the content of the paragraph is the one that summarizes the core essence of why social change happens and its sources.

The paragraph mentions that social change occurs due to relationships between individuals and groups, and the sources of such change can come from both outside and inside the society itself. This option accurately combines these two main points.

Every society experiences changes that occur due to relationships between individuals and groups coming from outside and inside.

Explanation

The given premise has a disjunctive logic structure:

1. P: Employees resign with severance pay.
2. Q: The company is closed.

The statement asserts: P or Q.

The fact is Q (the company is closed). In the context of this logic (exclusive disjunctive syllogism commonly found in general reasoning tests), if one option occurs, the other does not. Since the company is closed, the event of employees resigning with severance pay did not occur.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the company does not give severance pay to employees.