I second guessed myself here thinking B was too simple and since C was worded a bit more complex, it might be a better choice than B: no more choosing answers I do not fully understand
I had a lot of trouble understanding why C is wrong but this is what I came up with: we can't make this claim because the legislator never even looked for evidence of opposition or support for the bill. Instead, they used polling data about the issue of taxation at large, which overwhelmingly pointed at opposition to high taxes. Therefore, our job is to expose why this data is not sufficient to indicate support for a bill as stated.
Ding, ding, ding! Exactly. There is no evidence that there is no evidence, but conflating disfavor of high taxes with support for lowering them (especially if it's unclear what their position on the specific tax is) would weaken the argument tremendously!
At some point, maybe 20 lessons back, I stopped the habit of blind reviewing. I was religious about it for a while, but I found I reached a level of diminishing returns. I began to doubt myself more than necessary and often ended up selecting the correct answer initially only to end up falling into self-doubt in the BR and changing it. Has anyone else had this experience?
From personal experience, there is a limit to the benefits of BR.
omg I thought I was the only one esp since everyone always talks about blind reviewing as a must. I only do blind review on the drills after I step away from the computer so I can look back at it with a fresh perspective.
I can't understand this at all. Just because somebody doesn't support a raise doesn't mean they support a cut. They might want it to stay the same. What does the amount of the tax have to do with it?
the constituents were polled on whether they support high taxes, NOT on whether they would support a certain bill. How is that NOT a lack of evidence of support for a bill?
I understand that the bill does one thing that it seems the constituents would support but we have no idea what else might be in this bill and maybe there are other things in it that would cause the constituents to vote against it, or not vote… Either way, not support the bill.
My take is that one can reasonably assume that if your constituents don't like high taxes, in theory they would support a bill that cut taxes. The important question then is whether or not the taxes in question (in this case, corporate taxes) are actually high.
bro took way too much time explaining why A is wrong. Also not fully convinced on B. What if the constituents did not think the current tax was too high? would they oppose an even lower tax or wouldn't they still be in favor?
I actually think you answered your own question! Remember, these are flaw questions. Your description of B accurately describes the flaw in the author's reasoning. Because we have no proof in the stimulus that would imply or infer that the corporate tax is considered a "high" tax.
Therefore the reasoning is flawed and susceptible to other claims like you pointed out. That is why B is right.
I chose b as the correct answer choice through the POE for these reasons:
1. answer choice a - talk's about a set of people we don't care about so immediately its irrelevant (mentions to WHOLE population when the survey and conclusion applies to only the constitutes)
2. answer choice c - this answer Is confusing and words, but when u acc understand it there was no evidence provided for, or against the supposed bill in the arg so it just introduces stuff that was never mentioned to begin with
3. answer choice d - attractive because its describing something but it's info is actually incorrect bc the conclusion does not restate a claim that was just purely made in the premises
4. answer choice e - attractive because it brings up stuff that was mentioned in the argument (the bill being chosen) but its wrong because again its talking about "THE PUBLIC" who tf? we only care about the constitutes. Also there was nothing mentioned about completely supporting a bill vs merely consistent w supporting a bill
this is how I understood why the other ones were wrong, I hope this helps!
My exact thought process!! Sometimes we overthink with these questions and they get us! It's hard not to make arguments for some questions. I try to get in their mindset when I am in between questions 🤔. Are they really making this simple?
#help I thought the flaw was going to be that the legislator assumed the results of the poll which was overwhelming opposition to high taxes to apply to corporate taxes. How are we just assuming the two are talking about corporate taxes since the poll is not clearly indicating that?
In my mind, I was thinking the poll asked "do you support high taxes?" and that didn't specify corporate taxes so the people that responded were rejecting high taxes thinking it is targeted towards them.
I know I made a lot of assumptions there but that's what made me waste so much time on the question because I was looking for answer choice that will conform with my pre-phase. How should've I known that I got my pre-phase wrong?
Oh I get it now. I think the assumption was very obvious to me and I expected to say a version of the following:
"the argument assumed, without justification, that the tax they were polled about was corporate tax"
I needed it to make explicit that the assumption is between general tax, personal tax, corporate tax. Yet, B says we don't know if the constituents think the corporate tax is high. B is an implicit way of saying the legislator made an assumption about these different types of taxes or conflated them. Am I understanding this correctly?
I don't think your anticipation was wrong. I think, perhaps, you were a bit too attached to your specific phrasing. The correct answer and your specific phrasing are both talking about the same issue: Were the constituents thinking about taxes in general, the personal tax rate, or the corporate tax rate?
The argument assumed that they were thinking about the corporate tax rate. But that's precisely the weakness, as you pointed out.
I found other sections much harder than this one. Some sections just come more naturally to some than others. It's good you've noticed what's hard for you, now you know where to focus your attention! You've got this! ^-^
For these types of questions I have made scenarios up to help me. EX: Let's say the people in this district believe high taxes are at 40%, but corporate taxes are currently 25% and the legislator wants to take it down to 18%. Would they want him to do this? We have no idea. Maybe they think anything below 40% is acceptable. These types of questions I find it best to not get caught up in abstract language, rather just come up with real life scenarios and apply yourself to those results.
77 comments
sometimes you gotta get questions wrong to know what to remedy to get em right next time. still can't stop me
Love the attitude!
Wow! I actually hate these questions
this one gagged me im ngl
A wise man once said "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".
damn i was on such a roll before this one! I was so confident in C that i didn't even blind review it, oops
Same! C is a very 'good' trap answer, because it seems like a more major flaw if we interpret it wrong. Which I did.
when i'm between two ACs and end up choosing the wrong one 😍
American politicians from both parties be like
my problem is i am second guessing myself way too much
@jrm98
Gotta wonder which is worse though.
Over confidence errors, or not enough confidence.
I am so scared to submit my answers
I second guessed myself here thinking B was too simple and since C was worded a bit more complex, it might be a better choice than B: no more choosing answers I do not fully understand
I had a lot of trouble understanding why C is wrong but this is what I came up with: we can't make this claim because the legislator never even looked for evidence of opposition or support for the bill. Instead, they used polling data about the issue of taxation at large, which overwhelmingly pointed at opposition to high taxes. Therefore, our job is to expose why this data is not sufficient to indicate support for a bill as stated.
Ding, ding, ding! Exactly. There is no evidence that there is no evidence, but conflating disfavor of high taxes with support for lowering them (especially if it's unclear what their position on the specific tax is) would weaken the argument tremendously!
At some point, maybe 20 lessons back, I stopped the habit of blind reviewing. I was religious about it for a while, but I found I reached a level of diminishing returns. I began to doubt myself more than necessary and often ended up selecting the correct answer initially only to end up falling into self-doubt in the BR and changing it. Has anyone else had this experience?
From personal experience, there is a limit to the benefits of BR.
omg I thought I was the only one esp since everyone always talks about blind reviewing as a must. I only do blind review on the drills after I step away from the computer so I can look back at it with a fresh perspective.
I can't understand this at all. Just because somebody doesn't support a raise doesn't mean they support a cut. They might want it to stay the same. What does the amount of the tax have to do with it?
i thought the same thing... it seems almost irrelevant
I AGREE. Genuinely, help?
the constituents were polled on whether they support high taxes, NOT on whether they would support a certain bill. How is that NOT a lack of evidence of support for a bill?
I understand that the bill does one thing that it seems the constituents would support but we have no idea what else might be in this bill and maybe there are other things in it that would cause the constituents to vote against it, or not vote… Either way, not support the bill.
My take is that one can reasonably assume that if your constituents don't like high taxes, in theory they would support a bill that cut taxes. The important question then is whether or not the taxes in question (in this case, corporate taxes) are actually high.
bro took way too much time explaining why A is wrong. Also not fully convinced on B. What if the constituents did not think the current tax was too high? would they oppose an even lower tax or wouldn't they still be in favor?
I actually think you answered your own question! Remember, these are flaw questions. Your description of B accurately describes the flaw in the author's reasoning. Because we have no proof in the stimulus that would imply or infer that the corporate tax is considered a "high" tax.
Therefore the reasoning is flawed and susceptible to other claims like you pointed out. That is why B is right.
I chose b as the correct answer choice through the POE for these reasons:
1. answer choice a - talk's about a set of people we don't care about so immediately its irrelevant (mentions to WHOLE population when the survey and conclusion applies to only the constitutes)
2. answer choice c - this answer Is confusing and words, but when u acc understand it there was no evidence provided for, or against the supposed bill in the arg so it just introduces stuff that was never mentioned to begin with
3. answer choice d - attractive because its describing something but it's info is actually incorrect bc the conclusion does not restate a claim that was just purely made in the premises
4. answer choice e - attractive because it brings up stuff that was mentioned in the argument (the bill being chosen) but its wrong because again its talking about "THE PUBLIC" who tf? we only care about the constitutes. Also there was nothing mentioned about completely supporting a bill vs merely consistent w supporting a bill
this is how I understood why the other ones were wrong, I hope this helps!
My exact thought process!! Sometimes we overthink with these questions and they get us! It's hard not to make arguments for some questions. I try to get in their mindset when I am in between questions 🤔. Are they really making this simple?
we got this guys, keep going!
these are so hard omg :( :( :(
#help I thought the flaw was going to be that the legislator assumed the results of the poll which was overwhelming opposition to high taxes to apply to corporate taxes. How are we just assuming the two are talking about corporate taxes since the poll is not clearly indicating that?
In my mind, I was thinking the poll asked "do you support high taxes?" and that didn't specify corporate taxes so the people that responded were rejecting high taxes thinking it is targeted towards them.
I know I made a lot of assumptions there but that's what made me waste so much time on the question because I was looking for answer choice that will conform with my pre-phase. How should've I known that I got my pre-phase wrong?
Oh I get it now. I think the assumption was very obvious to me and I expected to say a version of the following:
"the argument assumed, without justification, that the tax they were polled about was corporate tax"
I needed it to make explicit that the assumption is between general tax, personal tax, corporate tax. Yet, B says we don't know if the constituents think the corporate tax is high. B is an implicit way of saying the legislator made an assumption about these different types of taxes or conflated them. Am I understanding this correctly?
I don't think your anticipation was wrong. I think, perhaps, you were a bit too attached to your specific phrasing. The correct answer and your specific phrasing are both talking about the same issue: Were the constituents thinking about taxes in general, the personal tax rate, or the corporate tax rate?
The argument assumed that they were thinking about the corporate tax rate. But that's precisely the weakness, as you pointed out.
Nailed it!
aw JY I like your new picture!
Thank you! ❤️
my brain literally turned off on this question
I chose C in Blind Review but chose B in the first go. Common L from me
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
as a history & poli sci major i ate up the bit about the authoritarian regime
Flaw question types being so important for the test and being horrible at them is killing me..
LOL how did i pick E! i've been doing just fine up until this question..... my point is.... we are bound to get some wrong, even silly ones like this.
why are these so hard :(
I found other sections much harder than this one. Some sections just come more naturally to some than others. It's good you've noticed what's hard for you, now you know where to focus your attention! You've got this! ^-^
Yes you are right and thank you so much! You got this too good luck!!! :)
"Oh, 97% are against high taxes. This means theyre supporting my CORPORATE income tax."
How many of that 97% fall under that corporate income tax? Probably few.
I quit
For these types of questions I have made scenarios up to help me. EX: Let's say the people in this district believe high taxes are at 40%, but corporate taxes are currently 25% and the legislator wants to take it down to 18%. Would they want him to do this? We have no idea. Maybe they think anything below 40% is acceptable. These types of questions I find it best to not get caught up in abstract language, rather just come up with real life scenarios and apply yourself to those results.