I changed my answer to A during BR since B-E are really bad, but I am not seeing how the company president "takes for granted " (assumes) what answer choice A states. Here is my breakdown:

For the new job, we are only going to interview people who have worked for the best firms. Therefore, when we choose someone, we will surely have selected one of the best people.

What I am looking for: This is a classic whole to part flaw. Maybe synergies or something creates the emergent property of being in the "top 1%." Also, is being in the top 1% even considered the best? What if the top 1% are very good, but only the top .01% are considered the best? The author's metric for "best" could be bad

Answer A: I confidently eliminated this one during the timed exam, which caused me to spin my wheels on B-E, which caused me to miss this one. During BR, I eliminated B-E first and chose this. But, I don't really understand where the author takes this idea for granted. To me, this isn't describing the "whole to part" flaw nor attacking the author's "best" metric. Specifically, the conclusion talks about "selecting one of the best." But, I don't see how this idea is limited only to the management consultants at top firms. Couldn't the author think that there are also some of the best at not top management firms? The author doesn't say anything to the contrary, so couldn't it be true? In my mind the word "only" is too strong; if this word was replaced with "sometimes," then I think this answer choice becomes more apparent. In other words, I just don't see where the author erroneously presumes this answer choice.

Additionally, say that there 200 firms. He is limiting is search to just the top 2 firms (the 1%). The company president makes no claim about people in the other 198 firms. Why couldn't a member of a top 4% firm be one of the best?

Answer B: What sample?

Answer C: This is what I chose during the timed exam, and the only reason I chose it was because I had to pick something (I had already eliminated A). This answer choice is backwards. It describes a "part to whole" flaw. If this answer choice were reversed, then I think it would work.

Answer D: Accepting? Irrelevant idea.

Answer E: Competent at every task? Irrelevant.

On PT 58.1.13, we have one of the harder main point questions. I got this one correct, but I want to make sure I am understanding the passage correctly.

Does the phrase "it is a given" introduce a premise? Also, does "for such" introduce a premise?

EDIT: I got rid of the "always introduce" since there are probably exceptions. I am more wondering if they tend to introduce premises.

I had a very tough time with this question, can someone evaluate my analysis of A, D, and E for me?

This is a weaken question.

The Kiffer Forest Preserve (KFP), which is a part of the A Valley, is where most of the bears in the valley live. The main road through the KFP has been closed for 8 years. During those 8 years, the bear population in the KFP has doubled. Therefore, the A Valley's population will increase if the road is kept closed.

What I am looking for: I think there are a few things wrong with this argument. First is the "part to whole" flaw. It is true that the KFP's population increased, but is that support for the idea that the entire valley's population will increase? Not really. What if the bears just moved there from other parts of the valley? Second is the causal flaw. What if there was something else that led to the increase in the bear population, and the road being closed is spurious? Third is the futuristic prediction. Let's assume that closing the road was the reason for the increase in the bear population, will continuing to keep it closed work? What if the bear population is at max capacity right now and no new bears can live there? You'd have to assume that that isn't the case.

Answer A: I had a very tough time eliminating this one, and I originally chose it during the timed exam. I had enough time to come back to it, and I did change it. I think this is wrong because to weaken the argument, you have to assume that the migration came entirely from other parts of the valley. But, that isn't an OK assumption. This answer choice leaves open the possibility that the migration came entirely from outside the valley.

Answer B: I think this may strengthen the argument since it sort of implies that migration from other parts of the valley was not another cause of the population increase in KFP.

Answer C: This is superficially similar to B, but it is wrong for a different reason. The statement is too weak to undermine the argument. Sure, the population increase in KFP didn't come from bears outside the valley, but what if the bears in KFP just had more babies or something due to cars not scaring off the bears? This answer choice doesn't do a whole lot.

Answer D: I changed my answer from A to this one. I think this is wrong because leaving out the rate of increase in KFP is important. Say that it is true that the population of the bears outside the KFP decreased a little bit, but what if bear population in the KFP increased by a million times? This scenario might strengthen the argument since the total population of the valley would still increase, even though only one small part of the valley is responsible for the increase.

Answer E: This is what I changed my answer to during BR. If the total population of the valley remained the same, then the doubling of the KFP population was solely due to internal migration. It wouldn't make any sense to say that the increase in the population of a part (KFP) transfers to a population increase of the whole.

PT70 Section4 # 17

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't important but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

Just want to confirm my diagram of "Not Otherwise" is correct.

A police officer is eligible for a Mayor's Commendation if the officer has exemplary record, but not otherwise.

Exemplary Record >> Eligible

Not (Exemplary Record) >> Not (Eligible)

i finally get logic games. i get 9/10 correct but each game takes me around 15 minutes. What can i do to cut it in 1/2 without sacrificing accuracy?

thanks

For #23:Parallel Flaw

like in #17 I had trouble diagramming a part of this stim.

The stimulus says that:

Almost every SP in the past had MTC

Using MTC to introduce VB

Therefore VB will be a SP

I diagrammed:

A-->B

B-->C

-----------

C-->A

But for "Using MTC to introduce VB" is suppose to be diagrammed as:

C-->B

Why? And why is my diagram wrong?

This is kind of a dumb question and I feel like no one else has this problem, but I've realized I constantly make mistakes identifying the scope or relevance of an AC on logical reasoning (RC too). If I'm choosing between two answer choices, I'll choose the more tempting one and later realize it was out of scope, and the right AC was really subtle.

Does anyone have any suggestions for this/exercises I can try/lessons I should focus on? I think I read carefully but I really don't know how far away I can go from the scope of the stimulus

If AC "C" only said "children tend to have more acute tastes: therefore, they zero in on foods with the most distinctive tastes" I would have seen it as being the correct AC right away, but instead this answer goes on to state they get sick more often than adults do? I thought we were not supposed to make assumptions or add things that aren't there when dealing with MSS question types? Although every other AC seemed no good, what popped into my head when looking at AC "C" is how do we know... children become sick more than adults do -where does it state this or is it even allude to it in the stimulus? Any insight would be nice. Thanks!

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't impotrant but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

For #26: I understand why (E) is wrong because the stim. is not defending (never says if right or wrong) but I was just wondering if someone could explain the difference between context and fact (this is what confused me answer (D) says historical fact while (E) says historical context, I just wanted to get a better understand of context vs fact in case it shows up on another question then I can eliminate them even quicker) Thanks :)

Okay, this question has got me. I'm BRing it, and I honestly cannot rule one answer out with confidence. That never happens. A, C, and D all seem pretty subjective to me, "mischaracterizing what Brooks says", "unhappiness varying in intensity of significance" ....are these not more ambiguous and generic than usual, or am I crazy? (actually, please don't answer that, I'm pretty sure I already know the answer) lol.

Could a kind soul please explain which one is correct, why, and why the other 4 are incorrect?

Thank you!

I've take PT 35-58 (58 this morning), and I am in the frustrating 168-172 range. Prior to the 50s, I was consistently going -2/-3 (with a few -0s here and there) on RC. Besides the games, I would have said that RC was my easiest/most consistent section. However, ever since PT 50, my RC score has just been awful: I've averaged -6 to -7 in this section, which has just brutalized my score (my past 3 or 4 exams have been significantly lower than my average because of this). Today was the most frustrating; I thought I turned a corner and aced the RC section, but I went -6. BR was -5 (which is still not what I am looking for). Any advice? I don't really think the passages in the 50s were that different from the other previous exams.

I was between B/E and choose B because I immediately crossed out E b/c of the term HIGHLY productive which isn't stated in the stimulus (but E was right)

- can anyone explain this to me and also why E right over B Thanks :)

Ok so when you get a question that asks you to find the argument with the most simillar reasoning or matches the arguement above are they never a flawed argument? I know we get questions that ask you to match the flaw but I am hoping to use this thinking to eliminate a wrong answer choice or two is this holds.

In short if the Question stem does not say "flaw" is it ok to assume the correct answer choice and the argument in the stimulus are logical arguments?

Hello all,

I really need some sage advice.

I have been following the LG attack strategy and the foolproof review method for LG sections. LG is by far my biggest trouble area. I know you gotta get LG perfect to see scores above 170s. LG is the section that is holding me back in high 160s area, and I am really really desperate to change this before the December test.

People say LG is the easiest section to improve, but for me.... I just can't do games well under a timed condition!! I can solve games well when I am just drilling non-timed.

Besides following the LG attack strategy Mr. Pacifico kindly shared with the community.... is there anything else I should be doing to get perfect on LG....? I would really really appreciate any advice. I never expected LG would be such a problem for me :(

I am doing the Miscellaneous Questions Problem Set 5, and 18.4.21 has me really confused. I googled the meaning and got this: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/11060/how-to-use-what-is-more

To me it boils down to "furthermore." If that is the case, then how is B not the correct answer? Wouldn't starting your response argument with "furthermore..." mean that you are using the same premises as the previous argument?

Independently, I don't see how E accurately describes the relationship between the arguments. What is the conflicting supposition? I think this answer choice is trying to get you to assume that since there is no general agreement in evaluating the merits of sound (Jane's argument), Mark's claim about "tonal quality" conflicts with that idea. But, isn't tone a more refined idea than sound?

I Googled the definition of sound and got: "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear." The definition of tone according to Google is: "A musical tone is a steady periodic sound. A musical tone is characterized by its duration, pitch, intensity (or loudness), and timbre (or quality). The notes used in music can be more complex than musical tones, as they may include aperiodic aspects, such as attack transients, vibrato, and envelope modulation."

Sound to me could be anything: random noises to steady/periodic/intentional sound choice. Musical tone, which is a type of sound, has to more with the latter than the former. Doesn't this mean that Jane's premises about sound and Mark's premise about tone both be true? Aren't sound and tone related, but not completely synonymous? I don't see how they necessarily conflict, which is what answer choice E states.

Would anyone be willing to discuss their explanations with me? I have handful of questions from each section, especially Game 3.

So I used to be averaging around -2 to -4 on the older RC passages but for some reason with most of the 50+ ones I've been taking, I always get around -7 to -9. I've been trying to change my method and lengthen the time I read the passage (used to do 2 minutes, trying for 3.5 now). Is it better for me to continue working on adapting to this new method, or stick to my old one? Or are the new ones just a little different and need some more time to adjust to?

Also, I didn't have much luck finding tips on comparative passages on the discussion board (probably didn't look far enough), so if anyone knows a link to suggestions on these that would help immensely!

Thank you!

Is there any quick way to diagram the following sentence during the exam? It takes me a lot of time to figure it out during PT.

If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft to its planet.

So I'm still going through the 7Sage curriculum and I'm sure (or at least hoping) that I'll get much better at Logic Games (before enrolling when I just tried them out a few times I was like -15) and as I'm slowly going through the practice and what not, I'm noticing the one MAIN and basically only issue I have with games.

I am horrible at figuring out / visualizing in my mind how to set up games if they are not simple 1 to 1 sequencing.

Diagramming the rules, coming up with inferences, all of that is coming to me fairly quickly, but reading the stimulus and figuring out how to draw the setup what rows/charts/etc to use is where I seem to get stuck at.

Any tips on how to overcome this?

I have been working on my LG for the last few days, in preparation for the December test. I am now getting to the point where I can get all the questions right on a standard linear game, but it's taking me a minimum of 12 to 13 minutes, and sometimes as much as 15 minutes per game.

I have a hard time seeing how I can increase my speed. For me, the games just require a lot of thought and that takes some time.

Anyone else faced this issue? Right now, 8 minutes per game seems almost impossible. Is it just a matter of practice, and that taking a lot of tests will increase speed?

Sooooo inferences are usually much more clear and this one is giving me a lot of trouble. I gave B a considerable amount of thought, but I felt like it's a flaw because it goes from health food enthusiasts to saying in general, those who take XYZ will lower chances of heart disease. And I saw that the researchers corrected for differences in health habits, but I still felt like I'd be making some sort of assumption by picking B.

That being said, I didn't like D or E much either because I felt D is really broad. For E, this is the one I chose because although I thought it shouldn't be going from XYZ to general "large daily doses of vitamins," I thought it was the best option available

What am I missing here!

I am just not seeing this one. I understand the gist of what answer B is saying, but I don't understand how the assumptions you need to make in the other answer choices are necessarily better than the assumption needed for B to be the correct answer.

The question is a must be false question, so 4 answer choices could be true.

Taxi drivers earn income based on the fares they get. The decide their working hours by setting an income target, and they stop working when they hit the target. Thus, they typically work fewer hours on busy days than on slow days.

What I am looking for: Essentially, the drivers at the start of the day say, "I will stop once I make $100." Once they hit that, they stop working. How does this suggest they stop working earlier on busy days? Couldn't they set their target higher on those days (assuming busy days are predictable)?

Answer A: Ya, I guess the argument supports this idea. The driver himself sets the target, so unless the driver isn't rational, he sets the target based on his needs. This could be true.

Answer B: I still really don't like this answer choice. It is true that if you set the target for $100 and you work 1 hour on busy days, the EHW is $100/hour. On slow days, say you work 10 hours, your EHW would be $10/hour. Thus, the passage seems to suggest that the opposite of this answer choice is true: you work less when your EHW is high (on busy days). But, what if they change their income targets on busy days to even out their EHW? You have to assume the drivers don't do this. Given that answer choices C-E also need assumptions, how do we value this assumption over the others? For this reason couldn't this answer choice also be true? I just don't see how we have enough information to say it must be false.

Answer C: It's true that the drivers get to set their own schedule, so I guess it could be true they accept a lower wage.

Answer D: Same as D. You have to assume that the drivers take into account their standard of living when they set their target. This could be true.

Answer E: We don't know anything about people with fixed hourly wages, so any comparison could be true.

EDIT: I had the wrong question in the title

I have a huge bone to pick with this one. I don't see how any of the answer choices "must be true."

Here is the law:

Greater than $100 AND made by nonresident AND nonresident isn't former resident--->Register

The campaign complied with the law (so it complied with the contrapositive as well). The campaign accepted contributions only from residents and former residents.

What I am looking for: I thought this was a pretty weird passage since the final clause only denies the sufficient condition, which tells us nothing about if those contributions needed to be registered. Thus, I thought an answer choice was going to specifically reaffirm this premise.

Answer A: This is what I chose, even though I was confident it was wrong. I chose it since I thought all of the answer choices didn't work. This answer is incorrect because the dollar amount of the people that donated to the campaign is irrelevant. The nonresident in this answer choice MUST have been former resident, and if this were what this had said, it would have been correct. However, the dollar amount could have been anything since our conditional rule is irrelevant.

Answer B: This could be true, but it doesn't have to be true. We only know one sufficient condition for registration; there could be multiple sufficient conditions for registration.

Answer C: This is the correct answer??? How must this be true? We only know one rule/sufficient condition for registration. Why can't there be other rules? The passage never indicates that the rule given is the only rule. What if all contributions from residents and former residents must be registered? How this is even close to being a correct answer is beyond my understanding.

Answer D: Again, this doesn't have to be true. We know nothing about donations by the residents and former residents. They each could have given the campaign $1 or something.

Answer E: Again, we only have one sufficiency condition for registration, so this could be true.