I Idont think I have ever been as shocked that D wasn't the right answer but my dyslexic ass mixed up right and left in the conclusion so naturally D isn't the right answer.
Have been doing amazing in all other sections - Can't at all wrap my head around how it's an "obvious" hypothesis that the owner stole the diamonds. We've been taught the entire curriculum not to supply outside assumptions into the argument, and that seems to be what we did to the stimulus in-order to draw similarities to answer choice A. I can't see why it isn't D other than for the fact that the hypothesis in answer choice D is "plausible" - yet the hypothesis in D seems anything but plausible to me when there can be hundreds of other reasons why her cavities formed that way, and similarly, why it isn't plausible that the thief did in-fact just wear gloves.
@Hungarian I totally relate to this! I think the reason D is wrong is that, as you said, the hypothesis is plausible whereas even though the hypotheses in the stimulus and answer choice A) are possible, there is a more obvious explanation that was overlooked. Of course, D) also could be explained by many other hypotheses, but unlike the stimulus and A), we aren't provided with a premise that strongly suggests an explanation different to the one provided in the conclusion.
D) says: "All of Marjorie's cavities are on the left side of her mouth. Hence, she must chew more on the left side than on the right." Okay, that makes sense, I guess. Sure, there could be lots of other reasons for the cavities and it's definitely wrong to conclude that the one-sided chewing must be the explanation, but we aren't provided with evidence that casts serious doubt on this explanation.
In contrast, A) says: "The campers at Big Lake Camp, all of whom became ill this afternoon, have eaten food only from the camp cafeteria. Therefore, the cause of the illness must not have been something they ate." Wait a minute! It'snot the cafeteria food that caused the illness? Isn't that the obvious explanation? Of course, it isn't guaranteed to have been the food, but the premise suggests that it is likely.
In both cases, the hypotheses to explain the phenomena are possible, but the explanation in D) is much more plausible than that in A).
The conclusion says: Therefore, whoever ....... must have worn gloves.
Remember, the correct answer will copy the structure of the stimulus, and it could be negated, meaning in this instance, we are looking for an answer choice that concludes with either must have (or must not), so let's see if this method works. All I did was highlight a couple of indicators in the stimulus, especially must in the conclusion, and all I will do is shallow dive into the answers and eliminate based on my criteria. I got this question right with 20 seconds to spare.
A) The campers at Big Lake Camp, all of whom became ill this afternoon, have eaten food only from the camp cafeteria. Therefore, the cause of the illness must not have been something they ate.
Love this, it's not giving me a comparative claim or a possibility like "might have" in the next AC, and the conclusion is very similar to the stimulus, remmember the structure is still technically the same on Parallel Question even if the same term used is negated, meaning if the stimulus in this case says MUST ... or MUST NOT.. those are basically the same regardless of the negation, however if what follows must is a comparative or a prediction and not an action or an event then it will most likely be false.
B) The second prototype did not perform as well in inclement weather as did the first prototype. Hence, the production of the second prototype might have deviated from the design followed for the first.
Might have, not what I'm looking for, and it is not the same as must/must not. I could accept negation as long as it's the same meaning, followed by one option or choice, and not a comparative.
C) Each of the swimmers at this meet more often loses than wins. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of them will win.
Unlikely that.. Skip!
D) All of Marjorie's cavities are on the left side of her mouth. Hence, she must chew more on the left side than on the right.
At first glance, this may seem like it is the winner, but the conclusion is a comparative statement, when the stimulus never compared between two different things. This is an attractive trap, but incorrect nonetheless.
E) All of these tomato plants are twice as big as they were last year. So if we grow peas, they will probably be twice as big as last year's peas.
This introduced a conditional in the conclusion as well as made a prediction. None were ever made in the stimulus; therefore, this is a quick skip.
I was able to get rid of D for having a comparative claim in the conclusion. But you said if D had said the "right side", than it would have been correct. So, the conlcusion type isn't necc. a good way to eliminate? Does the flaw in the reasoning hold more weight than the structure of the argument?
I think he just means that the structure is [info presenting one option] + [conclusion picking the other option without explanation] but in D the left side was considered in the premise and conclusion in a reasonable way ie didn't unwarrantedly eliminate a possibility. I think you can eliminate answers based on the conclusion but your thought process should take into account how the conclusion relates to the rest of the argument or if the conclusion follows the pattern you're looking for?
See I made the fatal deduction that the owner had consent therefore we exclude him from the equation only to realize in the blind review both are ignoring the the obvious answer... sat there like A is too stupid to be the right answer...
Was I the only one who did not consider that Tannisch could've taken it? My thought was that the thief simply only touched the diamond, which still led to the right answer because only A matched in form at all.
61 comments
I like the questions with less words
@grant.pgh
This question confused me because we didn't have to map it out. We just had to assume that is overlooked information...
my 13th reason in this entire section
I Idont think I have ever been as shocked that D wasn't the right answer but my dyslexic ass mixed up right and left in the conclusion so naturally D isn't the right answer.
Got it right, but at what cost
Your sanity
Have been doing amazing in all other sections - Can't at all wrap my head around how it's an "obvious" hypothesis that the owner stole the diamonds. We've been taught the entire curriculum not to supply outside assumptions into the argument, and that seems to be what we did to the stimulus in-order to draw similarities to answer choice A. I can't see why it isn't D other than for the fact that the hypothesis in answer choice D is "plausible" - yet the hypothesis in D seems anything but plausible to me when there can be hundreds of other reasons why her cavities formed that way, and similarly, why it isn't plausible that the thief did in-fact just wear gloves.
@Hungarian I totally relate to this! I think the reason D is wrong is that, as you said, the hypothesis is plausible whereas even though the hypotheses in the stimulus and answer choice A) are possible, there is a more obvious explanation that was overlooked. Of course, D) also could be explained by many other hypotheses, but unlike the stimulus and A), we aren't provided with a premise that strongly suggests an explanation different to the one provided in the conclusion.
D) says: "All of Marjorie's cavities are on the left side of her mouth. Hence, she must chew more on the left side than on the right." Okay, that makes sense, I guess. Sure, there could be lots of other reasons for the cavities and it's definitely wrong to conclude that the one-sided chewing must be the explanation, but we aren't provided with evidence that casts serious doubt on this explanation.
In contrast, A) says: "The campers at Big Lake Camp, all of whom became ill this afternoon, have eaten food only from the camp cafeteria. Therefore, the cause of the illness must not have been something they ate." Wait a minute! It's not the cafeteria food that caused the illness? Isn't that the obvious explanation? Of course, it isn't guaranteed to have been the food, but the premise suggests that it is likely.
In both cases, the hypotheses to explain the phenomena are possible, but the explanation in D) is much more plausible than that in A).
damn this one broke my streak
Guys i thinkkkkkk im getting it ARE WE BACK?
This question was not it.....
What really helped me for this one was looking out for the "must have" / "must not have"
I see why people skip these on exam day...
lol i was thinking if Mr. T is the owner he wouldn't have been the thief of something from his own property
The conclusion says: Therefore, whoever ....... must have worn gloves.
Remember, the correct answer will copy the structure of the stimulus, and it could be negated, meaning in this instance, we are looking for an answer choice that concludes with either must have (or must not), so let's see if this method works. All I did was highlight a couple of indicators in the stimulus, especially must in the conclusion, and all I will do is shallow dive into the answers and eliminate based on my criteria. I got this question right with 20 seconds to spare.
Love this, it's not giving me a comparative claim or a possibility like "might have" in the next AC, and the conclusion is very similar to the stimulus, remmember the structure is still technically the same on Parallel Question even if the same term used is negated, meaning if the stimulus in this case says MUST ... or MUST NOT.. those are basically the same regardless of the negation, however if what follows must is a comparative or a prediction and not an action or an event then it will most likely be false.
Might have, not what I'm looking for, and it is not the same as must/must not. I could accept negation as long as it's the same meaning, followed by one option or choice, and not a comparative.
Unlikely that.. Skip!
At first glance, this may seem like it is the winner, but the conclusion is a comparative statement, when the stimulus never compared between two different things. This is an attractive trap, but incorrect nonetheless.
This introduced a conditional in the conclusion as well as made a prediction. None were ever made in the stimulus; therefore, this is a quick skip.
ngl iv been crushing these.... but just in 5x the amount of time i need to do it in lol... i get so caught up
Me too, now that I know the strat I can get them right every time. This was the first question that I did under target time.
My dumbass forgot to read the word 'guest' and ended up infinitely confused.
Same here.
@HarambeOrHamurabi OMG
It is up to a point where I do not understand the reasoning, but from looking for the pattern of statement I got all of the questions correct so far.
how you do it thooooo
So far these have been pretty straightforward for me but this one really tripped me up for some reason.
ngl this one was a little tough lol but W
I am finally getting used to reading the patterns quickly, I feel like Neo seeing into the Matrix!
I often attack these by looking at key phrases such as "Must", "Some", etc. and do POE to narrow it down.. is that a good strategy or is it flawed?
@NathanStoker i do the same...
I was able to get rid of D for having a comparative claim in the conclusion. But you said if D had said the "right side", than it would have been correct. So, the conlcusion type isn't necc. a good way to eliminate? Does the flaw in the reasoning hold more weight than the structure of the argument?
Many Thanks!!
I think he just means that the structure is [info presenting one option] + [conclusion picking the other option without explanation] but in D the left side was considered in the premise and conclusion in a reasonable way ie didn't unwarrantedly eliminate a possibility. I think you can eliminate answers based on the conclusion but your thought process should take into account how the conclusion relates to the rest of the argument or if the conclusion follows the pattern you're looking for?
See I made the fatal deduction that the owner had consent therefore we exclude him from the equation only to realize in the blind review both are ignoring the the obvious answer... sat there like A is too stupid to be the right answer...
I was between A and D but chose A because of the word "only"
Was I the only one who did not consider that Tannisch could've taken it? My thought was that the thief simply only touched the diamond, which still led to the right answer because only A matched in form at all.
Crossed out A fast but bc that middle part of the first sentence threw me off (+00:26)
I was doing great on this section until this question. Just happened to be the one you can't discern the answer from using the shape of the argument.