Step 1: Understanding the Premises
Let's represent the given information using symbols to make it clearer.
Let P(County, Income Bracket) be the percentage of households in a given county within a certain income bracket.
Premise 1: P(Merton, >\$40k) > P(Any other county, >\$40k). This implies P(Merton, >\$40k) > P(Sommer, >\$40k).
Premise 2: P(Sommer, \(\geq\)\$60k) > P(Merton, \(\geq\)\$60k).
Step 2: Analyzing the Income Brackets
The question involves three income groups:
1. Income greater than \$40,000 (> \$40k).
2. Income greater than or equal to \$60,000 (\(\geq\) \$60k).
3. The bracket between these two, which we can define as incomes greater than \$40,000 but less than \$60,000 (> \$40k and < \$60k).
The percentage of households in this middle bracket can be calculated as:
P(County, >\$40k and <\$60k) = P(County, >\$40k) - P(County, \(\geq\)\$60k).
The question asks what must be true. This requires a logically certain conclusion.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation
Let's focus on Merton County. We need to determine if there must be any households in the middle bracket (>\$40k and <\$60k). This is equivalent to asking if P(Merton, >\$40k) must be strictly greater than P(Merton, \(\geq\)\$60k).
Let's assume, for the sake of contradiction, that there are no households in Merton County with incomes between \$40,000 and \$60,000.
If this were true, then any household with an income over \$40,000 must also have an income of \$60,000 or more.
This would mean: P(Merton, >\$40k) = P(Merton, \(\geq\)\$60k).
Now let's bring in the premises:
From Premise 1, we know: P(Merton, >\$40k) > P(Sommer, >\$40k).
If our assumption is true, we can substitute to get: P(Merton, \(\geq\)\$60k) > P(Sommer, >\$40k).
We also know that for any county, the percentage of households with income >\$40k must be greater than or equal to the percentage with income \(\geq\)\$60k. So, P(Sommer, >\$40k) \(\geq\) P(Sommer, \(\geq\)\$60k).
Combining these inequalities, we get: P(Merton, \(\geq\)\$60k) > P(Sommer, >\$40k) \(\geq\) P(Sommer, \(\geq\)\$60k).
This leads to the conclusion that P(Merton, \(\geq\)\$60k) > P(Sommer, \(\geq\)\$60k).
However, this directly contradicts Premise 2, which states that P(Sommer, \(\geq\)\$60k) > P(Merton, \(\geq\)\$60k).
Since our initial assumption led to a contradiction, the assumption must be false. Therefore, there must be some households in Merton County with an income between \$40,000 and \$60,000.
Step 4: Evaluating the Options
(A) We are given no information about incomes above \$60,000, so we cannot make any conclusions about the \$80,000 bracket.
(B) We know Sommer has a higher percentage than Merton in the \(\geq\)\$60k bracket, but we don't know how either county ranks against all other counties. Merton could be last.
(C) As proven above, this statement must be true. The premises would be logically inconsistent otherwise.
(D) The premises are about percentages, not absolute numbers. We cannot conclude anything about the number of households without knowing the total population of each county.
(E) We cannot determine the average income. A high percentage of people in one bracket does not guarantee a higher overall average income.
A research team is studying the effects of three different fertilizers (X, Y, and Z) on the growth of a specific plant species. They have four experimental plots with different fertilizer combinations: Plot 1: Fertilizer X only
Plot 2: Fertilizer Y only
Plot 3: Fertilizer X and Fertilizer Z only
Plot 4: Fertilizer Y and Fertilizer Z only
After a period of observation, they note the following: \[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{Plants in plots with Fertilizer X showed significantly increased height compared to a control group (no fertilizer).} \\ \bullet & \text{Plants in plots with Fertilizer Y showed a slightly increased leaf area compared to the control group.} \\ \bullet & \text{Plants in Plot 3 (X and Z) showed no significant difference in height compared to the control group.} \\ \bullet & \text{Plants in Plot 4 (Y and Z) showed significantly increased height compared to the control group.} \\ \end{array}\] Based on these observations, which of the following conclusions is best supported?
Statements: All apples are fruits. All fruits are tasty.
Conclusions: 1. All apples are tasty. 2. Some tasty things are apples.
If \(8x + 5x + 2x + 4x = 114\), then, \(5x + 3 = ?\)
If \(r = 5 z\) then \(15 z = 3 y,\) then \(r =\)