Question

Analyse the passage on “probability of death” and identify which conclusions follow from it. 1) Singular, non-replicable events can be assigned a numerical probability value.
2) Probability calculation requires data about a class of people or of events.
3) Data about a class of events can be used to predict the future of any specific event.

• A. 1 only
• B. 2 only
• C. 1 and 2
• D. 2 and 3
• E. 1 and 3
• A. if assignment of the boxers’ current fitness levels and their strengths is done by experts.
• B. by analysis of outcomes of fights between the boxers belonging to the two clubs.
• C. by analysis of outcomes of fights between the two boxers at different venues.
• D. by comparing outcomes of fights between the two boxers against same opponents.
• J. by analysis of outcomes of fights between the two boxers at the same venue in Los Angeles.
• A. if assignment of the boxers’ current fitness levels and their strengths is done by experts.
• B. by analysis of outcomes of fights between the boxers belonging to the two clubs.
• C. by analysis of outcomes of fights between the two boxers at different venues.
• D. by comparing outcomes of fights between the two boxers against same opponents.
• O. by analysis of outcomes of fights between the two boxers at the same venue in Los Angeles.
• A. Retaining one’s dignity is impossible without intruding upon others’ liberty.
• B. Retaining dignity does not necessarily involve robbing others’ liberty.
• C. Dignity and liberty are mutually exclusive.
• D. There is always the possibility of a “dignified intrusion”.
• T. Retaining dignity never involves intrusion into others’ liberty.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Extract the thesis of the passage.
The passage insists that probability has meaning only for a class (e.g., “all insured men aged 41 in a given country not engaged in dangerous occupations”). For a single person (a non-replicable one-off), “probability of death” has no meaning. 
Step 2: Test each statement against the thesis.
(1) Singular, non-replicable events can be assigned probability.
This contradicts the passage: the author explicitly denies attaching probability to a single, unique case. Reject 1.
(2) Probability requires class data.
This is exactly the author’s requirement—probability is defined over a class with countable outcomes/frequencies. Accept 2.
(3) Class data predict any specific future event.
The passage does not license determinative prediction for a particular case; it only allows a frequency statement about the class. Reject 3.
Step 3: Conclude.
Only Statement 2 follows. \[ \boxed{\text{2 only (B)}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Recall the passage rule.
Probabilities meaningfully attach to classes/aggregates, not to a single event/individual case. Step 2: Classify the options.
- (A) Judges this single match by expert assessment of the two individuals. This keeps us in the one-off, non-replicable, individual realm the author rejects. Maximal disagreement.
- (B) Uses many fights among boxers from the two clubs → aggregates/class-type data. Compatible.
- (C) Uses many fights between the same pair at different venues → repeated outcomes → quasi-class. More compatible than A.
- (D) Compares each boxer’s results vs same opponents → pooled performance data → class-like. Compatible.
- (E) Uses many fights at the same venue → again an aggregate. Compatible.
Step 3: Conclude.
The author would most strongly disagree with (A) because it treats an individual, one-off outcome as probabilistically assessable via expert opinion rather than class frequencies. \[ \boxed{\text{Option (A)}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Apply the class-data principle.
Agreement will go to the option that most clearly aggregates over a class rather than isolates an individual case.
Step 2: Compare viable aggregates.
- (B) Looks at outcomes of fights involving many boxers from each club — the broadest, most clearly defined class. Strongest match.
- (C), (D), (E) aggregate too, but remain narrower (same two boxers; same opponents; same venue), hence less class-like than (B).
- (A) is individual expert assessment of the single event → violates the principle.
Step 3: Conclude.
The author’s view aligns best with (B). \[ \boxed{\text{Option (B)}} \]

Answer 4

Step 1: Decode the conditional claim.
The passage says: retain dignity without intruding others’ liberty; however, it immediately adds that “not intruding is impossible.”
\Rightarrow If “no intrusion” is impossible, then any actual attempt to retain dignity will necessarily involve some intrusion.
Step 2: Test options against this necessity.
(A) Exactly restates the logical implication: dignity \Rightarrow intrusion (since “no intrusion” is impossible). ✓
(B) Says “does not necessarily involve” \Rightarrow contradicts the necessity just derived. ✗
(C) Says dignity and liberty are mutually exclusive \Rightarrow stronger than warranted. ✗
(D) Speaks of mere possibility, not necessity. ✗
(E) Says never involves intrusion \Rightarrow opposite of the statement. ✗
Step 3: Conclude.
Only (A) captures the necessity implied. \[ \boxed{\text{Option (A)}} \]