I would like some help in identifying some ways in which the following passage could be flawed: both if it were to be modified and also as it is currently. In other words, what would I have to modify in order to make the passage flawed, if it is not already? Some necessary assumptions for the following passage would also be much appreciated.

"In the past 1,000 experiments, whenever an experimental fungicide was applied to coffee plants infected with coffee rust, the infection disappeared. The coffee rust never disappeared before the fungicide was applied. Therefore, in these experiments, application of the fungicide caused the disappearance of coffee rust."

Thank you

I got the answer right, but why is it right

Hi, I am still confused on how choice D doesn't weaken the argument? Choice A seems like a weak answer choice doesn't it?

Could someone please explain why A is correct? #help

Can someone please explain this question I got the original and blind review answer wrong, and I am just very confused on how you come to the conclusion of "E" being the correct answer choice.

If someone could explain their reasoning behind how they reached the correct answer to this question it would be much appreciated.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I am consistently missing 3 to 5 on RC and I am unable to get it down to a -0-2~3 range. Has anyone been in this situation and are you willing to share tips for getting over the hump?

I take notes for each paragraph, try to highlight wrong portions of answers. I seem to miss analogy questions a lot and I noticed that every time I change my answer I tend to get it wrong. I feel like I need to be disciplined about changing my answer from my gut instinct, but I seem to convince myself that I should change it every time.

thanks!

Any tips on getting faster at RC? I'm trying to read each passage in 4min and answer questions in 4 min, but I am finding that I still take too much time on answering the questions. Should I spend less time reading?

Hi, I had a quick question about denying the link between premise and conclusion.

In this video: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/egyptian-and-mayan-pyramids-flaw-question/

JY talks about how denying the argument by denying the link between the premise and conclusion is not the same as denying the conclusion. In the particular question, the author denies the link between premise and conclusion but is not allowed to deny the conclusion.

When are you ever allowed to deny the conclusion? Or are you not allowed to usually?

Thanks.

When I do Necessary Assumption Question, I prefer to negate the Answer Choice and then test whether the argument becomes invalid. But this question confused me. Can anybody help me explain the question by negating and testing?

can someone explain why it a and not c?

I am having the hardest time understanding how E is the answer to this one. It was an answer I dismissed outright because I didn't see what the healthcare had to do with the murder rate. Perhaps the question was phrased weird, but I can't figure how to work it in my brain. Any advice?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I answered C for this question, when the answer was B, but I'd like further review on this answer.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

For this question, I had gotten it correct in the timed test, but ended up changing my answer in BR.

I wanted to discuss my reasoning for the BR, so that maybe it would help solidify why I chose B to begin with.

My reasoning was as follows:

I had initially chose B, but changed it during BR because I felt like the passage didn't explicitly tell us that the political stability would decrease. It did mention that believing that the constitution was being interpreted consistently with the intentions of its authors was "so necessary for political stability", but my reasoning during BR was that since it didn't explicitly state that politically stability would INCREASE, so I went with D.

From my understanding (please correct me if wrong) B is correct because ultimately we could ASSUME from the info given that political instability would increase from the info given.

However, I would now be extremely interested in why D would be wrong lol!

Anyways, just wanted to open up a discussion about this question :)

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

I understand why answer D is correct, but why is E incorrect? If T was slower than S, wouldn't that hurt the argument, especially as we're focused on treating the effects of heart attacks as soon as possible?

Can anybody explain E? If I negate AC(E), why the argument becomes invalid?

MMS question

I got this one wrong twice, the first time I picked D, this is not supported because we don.t know anything about the algae, only that they are the food source of the mussels, so we cannot infer anything else. In Blind review I choose C, also wrong answer, cause we don't know if there is any mechanical means available for cleaning the pipe.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

What does "presuppose" ACTUALLY mean in an AP question's answer choice?

I understand that presupposing something is similar to assuming something. But I still keep messing up on AP questions where the answer choices include the word "presuppose." I trick myself into believing that the argument has presupposed something!

For example, PT27.S2.Q17 (the "A Stable Society" question), I picked E :'(

Does anybody have any examples of when an argument really did presuppose something? Are answer choices in AP questions that mention "presupposing" always wrong?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Confused on how questions work -- I've done two drills now where I think I select an answer (the circle is blue) but only my first answer out of all of them is counted, while the rest are N/A.

Suppose we had a rule 6 situation where B goes to A and C goes to A, but B also goes to D and E goes to C. What happens if there are other pieces in the chain (for example, the D and E) when you take the contrapositive of the rule 6 group (A, B, C)? Do you also take the contrapositive of those? Like basically taking the contrapositive of the whole entire thing?

This is a weakening question type. The argument is stating that Bruno must have been a spy, the premise says that the spy was the only clergyman working at the embassy at that time. The assumption to make the argument week must be A, cause its stating that Bruno was no longer a clergyman once he started working at the embassy.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

when JY says to print "ten clean copies" of games in order to memorize the inferences of games, which games is he talking about? just the games featured in the videos in the LG core curriculum? or is he talking about those AS WELL as the games in the problem sets? and if hes also talking about the games in the problem sets, how many of those is he talking about?

i like the idea of doing a game repeatedly and unremittingly until ive memorized it. i just dont know on which games im supoosed to be practicing this strategy. thank you

Why is E the right answer and not A?

In the United States proven oil reserves —the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields—are at the same level as they were ten years ago. Yet over this same period no new oil fields of any consequence have been discovered, and the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

Which one of the following, if true, best reconciles the discrepancy described above?

A) Over the past decade the annual consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil in the United States.

E) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I chose E but struggled between that and the correct answer C. I focused on the idea that she was a "competent mechanic" and therefore her opinion in this scenario was founded however in the second piece of evidence provided it was less clear whether or not she was a competent judge and therefore how could those two be related. However I can see that the two scenarios are not related whatsoever which is why C is correct.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

#help why is the question A and not B?