Set 7

Explanation

To determine which statement is DEFINITELY TRUE, we must carefully match each option with the information in the text.

Analysis of the Correct Statement

The text explicitly states:

"The fiber and water content in apples will provide a sensation of fullness for longer."

We can structure this as an implication:

Where:

• $P$: Fiber and water content in apples.
• $Q$: Provides a sensation of fullness for longer.

The statement "A longer sensation of fullness can be obtained from apple consumption due to the fiber and water content in it" is fully supported by the text (equivalent to the implication).

Analysis of Other Statements

Why other options are incorrect:

• Potential to cause obesity: Contradictory. The text states apples prevent habits leading to obesity.
• Reducing someone: Awkward phrasing. The text says apples reduce the "desire" for sweets, not the person.
• High sugar levels make you full: Not in text. Satiety is attributed to "fiber and water", not sweetness/sugar.
• Highest content: Unfounded. The text mentions vitamins/minerals but never claims they are the "highest" compared to other fruits.

Thus, the only definitely true statement is the one linking fiber, water, and fullness.

Explanation

To answer this question, we need to find the statement that contradicts or uses logic that is too strong (such as excessive generalization) compared to the information in the text.

Analysis of the Most Likely False Statement

Consider the following statement:

"Pain and swelling in the gums are always caused by accumulated food leftovers."

The text explains the cause-and-effect flow as follows:

1. Food leftovers can accumulate.
2. This accumulation can harden into tartar.
3. Tartar can cause gums to become painful and swollen.

Notice the use of the words "can" and "may" which indicate possibility, not absolute certainty. The statement above uses the word "always", which is an absolute claim. The text never states that food leftovers are the only cause of gum pain. Therefore, this claim is the most likely to be false because it over-generalizes.

Analysis of Other Statements

Let's see why the other statements tend to be true or consistent with the text:

• "Teeth that are not routinely cleaned can form tartar"

  The text explicitly states: "If not cleaned routinely... can form tartar."

• "Accumulated tartar can cause gingivitis"

  The text links tartar with pain/swelling, which are referred to as "early symptoms of gum infection or gingivitis."

• "Food leftovers accumulating on the tooth surface have the potential to form tartar"

  This is consistent with the sentence: "these accumulated food leftovers can harden and form tartar."

• "Gum infection occurs due to the accumulation of tartar"

  The text explains the flow from tartar accumulation to gum infection symptoms (pain and swelling).

In conclusion, the statement using the word "always" is the one least supported by the probabilistic nature of the text.

Explanation

Based on the passage, we can construct a chain of cause and effect (implication) from the events described. Let's define the following statements:

• $P$: Not brushing teeth regularly every day.
• $Q$: Food debris remains in the mouth.
• $R$: Bacteria grow on the debris.
• $S$: Releasing unpleasant-smelling compounds causing bad breath.
• $T$: Forming dental plaque.

The logical flow in the text is sequential: $P \rightarrow Q \rightarrow R \rightarrow S \rightarrow T$.

Using the principle of Hypothetical Syllogism, we can deduce a direct relationship between the initial cause and the final effect:

This means, "If one does not brush teeth regularly every day ($P$), then dental plaque will form ($T$)."

The question asks for the conclusion if dental plaque is not formed ($\sim T$). We can use the Modus Tollens rule:

The conclusion is $\sim P$ (the negation of $P$). Since $P$ is "Not brushing teeth regularly every day", then $\sim P$ is "Brushing teeth regularly every day".

Explanation

To draw a valid conclusion from the text, we need to identify the explicitly stated cause-and-effect relationships. Let's define the key statements:

• $P$: Without proper supervision (parents do not provide proper supervision).
• $Q$: Mobile phones will have a negative impact on child development.
• $R$: Disruption of the child's brain growth (specific consequence of the negative impact).

Based on the text, the logical flow is sequential: "Without proper supervision ($P$), mobile phones will have a negative impact ($Q$), especially disrupting the child's brain growth ($R$)."

Mathematically, this can be written as a chain implication:

The question asks for the conclusion if condition $P$ occurs ("if parents do not provide proper supervision"). Using the Modus Ponens rule (or direct inference on the implication chain), if the initial cause ($P$) happens, then the final effect ($R$) must occur.

Therefore, the conclusion is $R$, which is "Mobile phones will cause disruption to the child's brain growth".

Explanation

Let's analyze the premises provided in the problem using mathematical logic:

• $P$: Budi diligently practices cycling.
• $Q$: Budi can cycle for long distances.
• $R$: Budi can win a bicycle race.

The given statements are:

1. If $P$, then $Q$ ($P \rightarrow Q$).
2. If $Q$, then $R$ ($Q \rightarrow R$).
3. Fact: Today Budi cannot cycle for long distances ($\sim Q$).

To draw a conclusion, we focus on the relationship between the first premise ($P \rightarrow Q$) and the existing fact ($\sim Q$). We can use the Modus Tollens rule:

The conclusion is $\sim P$ (the negation of $P$). Since $P$ is "Budi diligently practices cycling", then $\sim P$ is "Budi does not diligently practice cycling".

Although one might argue for $\sim R$ (Budi cannot win) if $\sim Q$ were an absolute condition, in formal logic, Modus Tollens on the first premise provides the most direct and certain conclusion regarding the cause.

Explanation

We can analyze this problem using simple comparative logic.

Let's break down the given information:

1. Fact: The terrace light is brighter than the bathroom light.
2. Rule: Lights that are brighter $\rightarrow$ more durable AND more expensive.

Based on this rule, since the terrace light has the "brighter" property, it automatically possesses the "more durable" and "more expensive" properties compared to the bathroom light.

If we look at it from the opposite side (the bathroom light), since the bathroom light is less bright, then it is:

• Not more durable than the terrace light.
• Not more expensive than the terrace light.

In other words, the quality and price of the bathroom light are below or equal to the terrace light, which corresponds to the statement "not more durable and not more expensive".

Explanation

Let's analyze the premises given in the text:

1. Premise 1: If the avocado is ready to harvest ($P$), then it tastes sweet and has a soft texture ($Q$).
2. Fact: Andi's avocado is not sweet and not soft ($\sim Q$).

Based on Modus Tollens logic ($P \rightarrow Q$, and $\sim Q$, then $\sim P$), we can conclude with certainty that Andi's avocado is not ready to harvest ($\sim P$).

The conclusion proposed in the question states that "Andi's avocado is ready to harvest". This statement directly contradicts the valid logical result.

Therefore, the quality of the conclusion is definitely false.

Explanation

To assess the quality of the conclusion, we must strictly compare it with the available information:

1. Information: Changes in green land cover $\rightarrow$ Increased land surface temperature AND Increased air pollution.
2. Fact: City A is experiencing changes in green land cover.
3. Proposed Conclusion: Potentially causes flooding.

In formal logic for scholastic aptitude tests, we are only allowed to draw conclusions from the provided premises. The text does not mention any relationship between "green land cover" and "flooding" at all. Although this might be related in the real world, in the context of the provided information, the variable "flooding" is absent.

Therefore, the conclusion regarding flooding is considered irrelevant to the premises, which limit the impact only to "temperature" and "pollution".

Explanation

To find the second highest number of visitors, we need to sum the total visitors of the library and laboratory for each day:

• Monday: $150 + 250 = 400$ people.
• Tuesday: $135 + 210 = 345$ people.
• Wednesday: $100 + 140 = 240$ people.
• Thursday: $140 + 170 = 310$ people.
• Friday: $165 + 120 = 285$ people.

Now let's rank the number of visitors from highest to lowest:

1. Monday ($400$)
2. Tuesday ($345$)
3. Thursday ($310$)
4. Friday ($285$)
5. Wednesday ($240$)

Therefore, the second highest number of visitors in the two facilities of SMA MMM occurred on Tuesday.

Explanation

To calculate the total visitors to the laboratory facility over the $5$ days, we need to sum up the laboratory visitor data (orange line) from Monday to Friday:

Thus, the total number of visitors is:

So, the total number of visitors to the laboratory facility over the $5$ days is $860$ people.

Explanation

First, we calculate the weight of chocolate powder needed to make $10$ cakes using the given ratio. The ratio of chocolate to vanilla is $3 : 2$, and the weight of vanilla is $30$ grams:

Next, we calculate the requirement for $50$ cakes. Since $50$ cakes is $5$ times $10$ cakes, the weight of chocolate powder needed is also $5$ times as much:

So, the weight of chocolate powder needed to make $50$ cakes is $225$ grams.

Explanation

This problem can be solved using the concept of direct proportion between the height of an object and the length of its shadow. Let $h_M$ be Mirza's height.

Given:

• Nafis's height = $1.5$ meters
• Nafis's shadow = $4.5$ meters
• Mirza's shadow = $6$ meters

We set up the proportion equation:

So, Mirza's height is $2.00$ meters.

Explanation

We analyze the pattern of changes between terms in the sequence $1, 3, 5, 4, 12, 14, 13, \dots$

The pattern formed is as follows:

It can be seen that the repeating pattern is multiply by 3, add 2, and subtract 1 ($\times 3, +2, -1$).

Therefore, the next operation after $-1$ is multiply by 3:

So, the correct value to complete the sequence is $39$.

Explanation

We analyze the pattern of changes between terms in the sequence $1001, 995, 991, 985, 981, \dots$

The pattern formed is as follows:

It can be seen that the repeating pattern is subtract 6 and subtract 4 ($-6, -4$).

Therefore, the next operation after $-4$ is subtract 6:

So, the correct value to complete the sequence is $975$.

Explanation

Based on the passage, it is stated that tomatoes have various other health benefits, one of which is preventing cancer.

Therefore, the statement that "Consuming tomatoes can help someone avoid cancer" is DEFINITELY TRUE because it aligns with the information provided in the text.

Analysis of other options:

1. Kidney stone formation is largely caused by tomato consumption: Incorrect. The text only mentions that excessive consumption contributes, not that it is the main cause ("largely caused by").
2. Tomatoes can also worsen digestion: Incorrect. There is no information regarding digestion in the text.
3. The oxalate acid content in tomatoes potentially increases blood sugar levels: Incorrect. The text states that tomatoes control blood sugar levels, while oxalate acid is related to kidney stones.
4. Tomatoes are widely consumed because they have relatively low calories: Incorrect. There is no information regarding calorie content in the text.

So, the statement that is definitely true is that consuming tomatoes can help someone avoid cancer.

Explanation

Based on the text, there is a clear cause-and-effect relationship regarding the impact of IKN construction on animals:

IKN Construction $\rightarrow$ Human-animal conflict $\rightarrow$ Threatens habitat $\rightarrow$ Some animals threatened with extinction.

This sequence of events demonstrates that the construction of IKN has a real impact on the existence and survival of animals in the region.

Therefore, the statement "The construction of the National Capital City (IKN) does not affect the existence of animals" is DEFINITELY FALSE because it explicitly contradicts the fact that the construction triggers conflicts and extinction threats.

Analysis of Other Options:

• Minimizing habitat destruction can reduce extinction threats: True. This is the solution proposed at the end of the text.
• Some plant species are threatened with extinction: Inconclusive. The text mentions "hundreds of plant species" exist there, but specifically states that "a number of animals" are threatened.
• Some animals are threatened due to habitat destruction: True. Conflicts threaten habitats, leading to extinction threats.
• Habitat destruction affects construction: False. The text's logic is that construction affects habitats, not the other way around.

Explanation

We can construct an implication logic based on the information in the text as follows:

Where:

• $P$: Someone routinely sleeps on their back.
• $Q$: Does not experience extra pressure on the front part of the body.
• $R$: Does not experience pain in that part (front part of the body).

If someone routinely sleeps on their back ($P$), then based on the logic chain above, the conclusion is that they will not experience pain in the front part of the body ($R$).

Therefore, the appropriate conclusion is "The front part of the body will not feel pain".

Analysis of Other Options:

• The front part of the body will feel pain: Contradicts conclusion $R$.
• Potential to get acid reflux: Incorrect, the text states it actually prevents acid reflux.
• The neck will be free from pain: Not discussed in the text (only discusses the front part of the body).
• Snoring will decrease: Incorrect, the text implies this position is not recommended for snorers (likely worsens it).

Explanation

We can break down the information from the text into the following points:

1. Poultry: Reproduces by laying eggs.
2. Snakes: Reproduces by laying eggs (even though they are not poultry).

From these two premises, it is clear that there is a similarity between snakes and poultry in terms of their reproduction method.

Since both result in the same method, the valid conclusion is that snakes have the same method of reproduction as poultry.

Analysis of Other Options:

• Has a method of reproduction that is not the same: False. Both reproduce by laying eggs.
• Has the same characteristics: False. "Characteristics" is too broad (could be physical, habitat, etc.), while the similarity is only mentioned in the reproduction method.
• Has the same eggs: False. The text does not discuss the physical appearance of the eggs.
• Has the same way of laying eggs: Less Precise. The phrase used in the text is "method of reproduction", not the technical "way of laying eggs" (the process). Option C is more precise according to the text.

Explanation

We can map the information into logic as follows:

Both conditions (Chance of High Salary and Chance of Promotion) have the same trigger or prerequisite, which is Working Hard.

Since the group "Employees who work hard" must have both chances simultaneously, it can be concluded that employees who fall into the "Chance of High Salary" category (because they work hard) also automatically fall into the "Chance of Promotion" category.

Therefore, the correct conclusion is "Employees who have a chance of getting a high salary are those who have a chance of getting a promotion."

Analysis of Other Options:

• Other options are incorrect because they deny the relationship between the two chances (saying "not" or "do not"), even though both go hand in hand for employees who work hard.

Explanation

Let's break down the logic of the statements using mathematical symbols to make the structure clearer.

Suppose we define the following three statements:

• $P$: Routinely jogs in the morning and has a good diet.
• $Q$: Has a strong physique.
• $R$: Healthier body.

Based on the question text, we get the following logical premises:

Premise 1: Someone will have a strong physique if they routinely jog in the morning and have a good diet.

Premise 2: A strong physique makes the body healthier.

Fact: Andi routinely jogs in the morning and has a good diet.

Conclusion Analysis

We can combine Premise 1 and Premise 2 using the Hypothetical Syllogism principle:

This means: "If someone routinely jogs in the morning and has a good diet, then their body will be healthier."

Since Andi satisfies condition $P$ (routinely jogs and eats well), he automatically satisfies condition $R$ (has a healthy body).

Therefore, the conclusion that "Andi has a healthy body" is valid and definitely true based on deductive logic.