None of the options provided can be concluded from the data with which we have been provided. Merely from the fact that Filbert is intelligent, we cannot conclude that he necessarily has a job that pays well. Furthermore, even if he does have such a job, we cannot say that it is necessarily fulfilling. The question of his misery is quite out of bounds with regard to what we can say, for perhaps he is miserable for another reason. (Perhaps he is not, as well—we cannot say). Finally, we can say nothing about Vermont's citizenry in general. If we cannot say that Filbert is well-paid, then we must say nothing at all.

Do not be distracted by additional information that is included in this question. We actually are not told too terribly much, but let's note what we can. We are told nothing about Peter other than his friendship with Ronald. The best that we can say about Peter is, "Peter has a joyful friend." This is not provided among the options. Now, since Ronald is joyful, there is a chance he is temperamental. This is not guaranteed—the problem states merely that if you are temperamental, then you will be either angry or joyful. It says nothing about the "other direction" (i.e. from joy to temperamental). Someone who is joyful may just be that—joyful—without being temperamental. Still, being temperamental is not incompatible with being joyful. Thus, there is a chance that Ronald is temperamental. While not all temperamental people are musicians—given what we have said—it is not incompatible with being temperamental to be a musician. Thus, among the answers, only, "Ronald might be a musician," is correct. Note, however, that this is a very weak claim.

Among the options provided, none of them can be concluded based on the information that has been provided. While there was a hailstorm yesterday, that does not guarantee that George is happy today. Certainly, he is always happy when it is hailing. That only tells us that he was happy yesterday—when it was hailing. Now, that means that yesterday, there was a particular chance that Mildred was bitter, especially given George's joy. Indeed, we could even likely say she is bitter today—she is said to be bitter regularly (just more so when George is happy); however, that is not provided as an option. Likewise, perhaps George is only happy when it hails—we do not know one way or the other based on the information provided. Thus, the best answer among those provided is "None of the other answers."

First of all, note that "pilfer" means steal (usually something of little value). Since Bob stole three pizzas yesterday, we can likewise state that he pilfered them. Thus, he was happy yesterday. (Such pilfering always makes him joyous). We do not know if he is happy today, nor do we know anything about his personality in general. Likewise, the conclusion that we can reach is not that he was merely potentially joyful. He certainly was—at least given the data with which we have been presented.

Given that we know that almost all roaches are filled with diseases and that there are millions of them in the garbage pit, we can at least surmise that there is a great likelyhood that there will be a good deal of disease in the pit. Still, we cannot say this conclusively. There is always the (very improbable) chance that only disease-free roaches are in the pit. Likewise, we cannot guarantee that there are any disease-free roaches in the pit. It could be the case as well that all million are disease-ridden. The best that we can conclude is the modest answer, "The garbage pit is likely to be disease-filled."

Just becaues Bill eats cake for dinner, we cannot say that he is a banker. All that can be said about bankers and cake-eaters is that if someone is a banker, then we can conclude that they do not eat cakes for dinner. Thus, the most true statement is that Bill might have excellent teeth, though we cannot say so for sure.

 Let's use symbols from math to help us understand this:

(1) Jeremy is taller than Jean: Jeremy > Jean

(2) John is shorter than Jeremy: John < Jeremy

This could be rewritten: Jeremy > John

Thus, we know that Jeremy is taller than Jean and John; however, we do not know anything about the relationship between John and Jean.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this.

(1) Thomas is smarter than Luca: Thomas > Luca

(2) Luca is smarter than John: Luca > John

We could string these together as well:

Thomas > Luca > John

John is not smarter than Thomas; therefore, this is false.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this.

(1) Baruch is weirder than Frederick: Baruch > Frederick

(2) Frederick is weirder than Arthur: Frederick > Arthur

These can all be combined to give us: 

Baruch > Frederick > Arthur

It is indeed the case that (3) Baruch > Arthur.

Let’s use symbols from math to help us understand this. "Greater than" (>) will mean "more known," and "less than" (<) will mean "more unknown."

(1) Godfrey is more unknown than Henry: Godfrey < Henry

This could be rewritten: Henry > Godfrey

(2) Henry is better known than Giles: Henry > Giles

Thus, we know that Henry is more known than both Giles and Godfrey; however, this does not tell us anything about the relationship between Giles and Godfrey.  Therefore (3) is uncertain.