This question's particular placement is designed to make us feel good about flaw questions. So, if anyone failed to get this level 1 flaw question correct , I would take this as a sign to be scared. Flaw and Parallel reasoning questions are the two question types that seperate 170+ test takers from below 170 test takers. Take away: pay particular attention to these next two question types. They are the score killers.
key here felt like finding what the resident's argument truly was or the core of it. i jumped the gun on A but in the blind, it felt a lot clearer that the resident was focusing on the smaller fish in the pond and that connected with the section of them making the connection or arguing that there's a correlation and D was the only one that addresses the correlation/causation argument.
I highly suggest those who got this right still watch the explanation video because he explains in detail the verbs at the beginning of the answer choices and how to apply them to the stimulus.
#Feedback can you include an option for us to take these practice questions timed on the new version of the website? I really liked having that option.
They are different because A says the argument “presumes” something. B says the argument “ignores” something. If the argument had presumed that smaller fish are more susceptible than larger fish, we should be able to locate where in the argument that is addressed, but we can’t. Thus, A isn’t accurately describing anything going on in the argument. However, B does accurately describe that the argument ignored effects on smaller fish in larger bodies of water with more diverse ecosystems. Hope that helps!
@manahilayoob76 The argument definitely overlooks algae's effects in larger bodies of water as only 1 pond is discussed, failing to consider any larger water bodies in its stated text. However, we have no evidence that the resident presumes that smaller fish are more susceptible; they could actually think that larger fish are more susceptible but just aren't talking about them in this specific argument. Failing to consider something involves leaving it out of the argument while presuming is an actual assumption that is made, furthering a point in the argument.
I fear I was stuck between A and D. I ended up choosing D, but the reason A was attractive to me was because I did think the author "presumes ... that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae than are larger fish"
JY said that there was no mention of larger fish, but I felt like the word "smallER" implied that comparison. Maybe I def overthought it, but, in my head, I asked "smaller than what." And the answer was larger fish (in comparison to the smaller dead fish). You see where I'm going (well I hope you do).
What tipped me over to D, was the "without justification." In my head, I was like I guess the author provided justification (maybe horribly so, but they did)
The local resident is only talking about the relationship between small fish in the pond and algae. The resident never brings up a relationship between small fish and large fish which is why A is irrelevant.
D on the other hand talks specifically about the relationship between small fish and algae which is in the right direction.
Flaw questions do not ask you to add information (like maybe something about larger fish) to weaken the argument. Its asking you to describe what is already there that is weak, and there is no mention of larger fish or even a hint about a comparison between small and large fish.
Another way I like to think about it is diagramming out the argument structure.
Premise: algae and dead small fish (corr)
Conclusion: algae -c-> dead small fish (caus)
The whole argument and revolves around algae and dead small fish, and the author's reasoning is concluding causation from a correlation between algae and dead small fish. That's the biggest flaw in the resident's argument. A does not attack this line of reasoning while D does.
I hope this makes sense :)) I used to get caught up in the small details of a stimulus (which are important), but it is more important to understand the stimulus and its reasoning as a whole before delving into smaller details.
@eshakashyap16880 exactly. if the argument said, big and small fish were dying, it wouldn't change the argument. its a change in scope. it isn't getting at the central weakness
wouldn't B be descriptively inaccurate because it concerns itself with the matters of larger bodies of water, while the stimulus clearly dictates "this pond?"
The specifics in language always have me over thinking. I stared at this question for 7 minutes, finally the correct answer emerged. But my goodness, she was hiding in the weeds for a good long while!
65 comments
This question's particular placement is designed to make us feel good about flaw questions. So, if anyone failed to get this level 1 flaw question correct , I would take this as a sign to be scared. Flaw and Parallel reasoning questions are the two question types that seperate 170+ test takers from below 170 test takers. Take away: pay particular attention to these next two question types. They are the score killers.
I wonder how the question levels are determined, this required more thinking than the level suggests.
key here felt like finding what the resident's argument truly was or the core of it. i jumped the gun on A but in the blind, it felt a lot clearer that the resident was focusing on the smaller fish in the pond and that connected with the section of them making the connection or arguing that there's a correlation and D was the only one that addresses the correlation/causation argument.
My first W. I'll take it.
A WIN IS A WIN!
thought this would be at LEAST level 2
Why is their always side conversations in the explanation its like these don't have to be 15 min long videos
lmao almost everybody got this correct
@TeklaCo I was super stunned.
thought this was a weaken q lol
I knew the answer was D but then I second guessed myself. Then seeing the difficulty drained me LMAO
@JessM same lol
i got this one right, but this was not a level one difficulty lol
I highly suggest those who got this right still watch the explanation video because he explains in detail the verbs at the beginning of the answer choices and how to apply them to the stimulus.
@Ave_happ22 you're so right! thanks
Took me 30 seconds :D
Sees difficulty >:(
I got this right, but kinda surprised it was listed as such an easy question. Definitely required some thinking.
yay first attempt i got it right!
#Feedback can you include an option for us to take these practice questions timed on the new version of the website? I really liked having that option.
How is B descriptively accurate and A isnt?
They are different because A says the argument “presumes” something. B says the argument “ignores” something. If the argument had presumed that smaller fish are more susceptible than larger fish, we should be able to locate where in the argument that is addressed, but we can’t. Thus, A isn’t accurately describing anything going on in the argument. However, B does accurately describe that the argument ignored effects on smaller fish in larger bodies of water with more diverse ecosystems. Hope that helps!
@manahilayoob76 The argument definitely overlooks algae's effects in larger bodies of water as only 1 pond is discussed, failing to consider any larger water bodies in its stated text. However, we have no evidence that the resident presumes that smaller fish are more susceptible; they could actually think that larger fish are more susceptible but just aren't talking about them in this specific argument. Failing to consider something involves leaving it out of the argument while presuming is an actual assumption that is made, furthering a point in the argument.
I fear I was stuck between A and D. I ended up choosing D, but the reason A was attractive to me was because I did think the author "presumes ... that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae than are larger fish"
JY said that there was no mention of larger fish, but I felt like the word "smallER" implied that comparison. Maybe I def overthought it, but, in my head, I asked "smaller than what." And the answer was larger fish (in comparison to the smaller dead fish). You see where I'm going (well I hope you do).
What tipped me over to D, was the "without justification." In my head, I was like I guess the author provided justification (maybe horribly so, but they did)
Can someone tell me why I'm off? Thanks :)
The local resident is only talking about the relationship between small fish in the pond and algae. The resident never brings up a relationship between small fish and large fish which is why A is irrelevant.
D on the other hand talks specifically about the relationship between small fish and algae which is in the right direction.
Flaw questions do not ask you to add information (like maybe something about larger fish) to weaken the argument. Its asking you to describe what is already there that is weak, and there is no mention of larger fish or even a hint about a comparison between small and large fish.
Another way I like to think about it is diagramming out the argument structure.
Premise: algae and dead small fish (corr)
Conclusion: algae -c-> dead small fish (caus)
The whole argument and revolves around algae and dead small fish, and the author's reasoning is concluding causation from a correlation between algae and dead small fish. That's the biggest flaw in the resident's argument. A does not attack this line of reasoning while D does.
I hope this makes sense :)) I used to get caught up in the small details of a stimulus (which are important), but it is more important to understand the stimulus and its reasoning as a whole before delving into smaller details.
@eshakashyap16880 exactly. if the argument said, big and small fish were dying, it wouldn't change the argument. its a change in scope. it isn't getting at the central weakness
I cut down 1 star questions with the power of hatred that I've built up within me from failing 5 star questions
wouldn't B be descriptively inaccurate because it concerns itself with the matters of larger bodies of water, while the stimulus clearly dictates "this pond?"
i got it right, took me 6 minutes tho
still a slay
thanks so much! i hope everything is going well with your studies!! Best of luckkk
"Look mom, no handles," he says, while riding a quadycle with two different sets of training wheels
this is so funny and accurate LMAOOO
BANGGGG
The specifics in language always have me over thinking. I stared at this question for 7 minutes, finally the correct answer emerged. But my goodness, she was hiding in the weeds for a good long while!
How could someone do this in 49 secs? I was just perfectly primed for this question with the last two lessons and I still went over 1 min.