The adverb "generally" can indicate that something happens in a broad, unspecified manner or that something happens in most cases. For instance we could say, "Generally speaking, it is true that scientists are good at math." We contrast such general speaking to being specific or particular. We can likewise contrast it to something that does not happen usually—i.e. something that happens rarely. For instance, "Generally, it does not rain in Southern California. However, it does rarely happen that it rains quite a bit in short bursts."

Since Peter is a good conversationalist, there is a chance that he is an interesting person. All interesting people are good at conversation. This does not mean, however, that all people who are good at conversation are interesting people. (The direction goes: If interesting then good at conversation); therefore we can eliminate the flat claim that he is an interesting person. At best we can say that he might be interesting. Likewise, the correspondence between professors and being interesting is not absolute (only some are interesting). We cannot rule out that Peter is a professor based on what we have said. Thus, this weak claim is the best answer.

Now, since John is fanatically devoted to video games, we can call him a fanatic in general. Based on the information provided, we cannot say what percentage of fanatics shout loudly. Likely, we do not know what percentage of those who shout loudly get hoarse throats. The safest thing to presume is merely that there is a chance that John shouts loudly and, because of that chance, there is a chance that he has a hoarse throat. Nothing more speceific can be determined.

Note that all of the incorrect answers assert likelyhood to some degree. This is not merited by the information that is provided. All that we know is that there is a chance that someone standing next to a speaker will ultimately become deaf. Whether or not this will happen is left relatively undetermined. Since it is better not to presume one way or the other, the best option is "none of the above."

All of these potential answers presume too much. We can say nothing concerned with the safety of Blueburgh. For all we know, it might be plagued with flesh eating locusts or fire-breathing dragons (or at least something dangerous and real, even if not earthquakes). Regarding the damaged buildings, we likewise do not know if (for example) the city often has fires that damage buildings. We cannot extrapolate anything about the general damage of buildings based on the information that we have been provided here. Thus, the best answer is "None of the other answers."

First of all, note that "pragmatic" means "sensible and practical." Thus, since the people of Uniontown make practical decisions, they are at least (on average, based on our information) more likely to choose a pragmatic solution—that is, coal power. We can say nothing about whether or not they will love or hate either option. Indeed, they might hate making the choice, though they know it is the practical thing to do (and hence prefer it without wholly loving it).

Note that all we can speak about is the situation right now. (This immediately elimnates the claim about the cost of the house in the future). Now, rats (giant or not) are a type of "vermin." Thus, their presence has defintely brought down the value of my house. This is the only thing I can say with certainty among the options provided. The house is not necessarily worthless, and while I should eliminate the potentially disease-carrying animals, the information provided only allows me to say that my house has likely lost value because of their presence in the house.

The information provided merely tells us that books are among the types of objects made of acid-free paper and that most newspapers are among those made of acidic paper. There may be many other types of things made of either type of material, so being told that a bin has a mixture of acidic and non-acidic paper really does not tell us much. Indeed, note that the information merely states that the bin has a mixture of the types of paper. This does not even indicate whether or not the paper has printing on it. That really does not tell us much at all; therefore, among the options provided, the best answer is, "We cannot determine if there are books or newspapers in the bin."

Let's rewrite our data as follows:

Ronald: Joy and X

Jacob: Sorrow and impatience

Mildred: Joy and Y

We have two of each joy, sorrow, and impatience to be used in the group. This means that Ronald and Mildred could either have sorrow or impatience. Now, do not read too much into the question, thinking that this is impossible—for one of them to have joy and sorrow. Perhaps they experience these at different times. The question is not specific in that regard. We cannot say that Ronald or Mildred must have one or the other—there is not enough data to justify such a specific claim; however, we can say something like, "Ronald also experiences either sorrow or impatience."

Do not be fooled by the implications of the statements regarding tallness and toenails. While everyone with long toenails is spiteful, it is not necessary that everyone who is spiteful to have long toenails. (Someone could be spiteful merely for the sake of spite, for instance). Likewise, we cannot conclude that George is likely to be tall. Still, we can make the certain conclusion that he is very unpleasant, for all spiteful people are very unpleasant.