User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Tuesday, Aug 31 2021

The main conclusion is that ABC should implement flextime, not that they should increase production. Increasing production is the goal of the company but it isn't the author's conclusion. Imagine ABC having a company meeting to discuss how to increase productivity and this author is arguing that we should meet the goal of increasing productivity by implementing flextime.

P1:Flex time increases morale

NA: morale increases production

SC: flex time increases production

C: ABC should implement flex time

PrepTests ·
PT117.S3.Q19
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Friday, Jul 30 2021

#help!

I identified the flaw as residing in the switch from "appears to be altruistic" in the premise to "genuinely altruistic" in the conclusion. I was looking for an answer choice that said something about conflating those principles (appearing one way vs. actually being that way), and B seemed to do that, so I chose it and moved on. I understand the main error JY identifies, essentially the switch from "can" to "must", but I'm still wondering whether the flaw I identified is legitimate.

AC B says that the author takes a behavior that merely seems to be altruistic and infers that that behavior is in fact altruistic.

This is obviously descriptively inaccurate, since the author infers from something that seems altruistic that it is not in fact altruistic.

My question is, if AC B said "Takes a behavior that merely seems to be altruistic and infers that that behavior is in fact not genuinely altruistic", would it be correct? I think it is descriptively accurate, but is it a flaw that's happening? Any insight about how to interpret the switch from "genuine" to "appears" would be helpful, since I know this is a flaw that does appear in other questions. #help

PrepTests ·
PT118.S3.Q19
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Thursday, Jul 29 2021

I got this question correct because AC E was just too good to eliminate, but I considered D for a while. It was clear to me that the argument makes an assumption about 1 hour not constituting enough time to learn preventative medicine. But I also was considering, in my prephrase, an assumption about "more cost effective." I wondered whether that meant that preventative was being taken to be cheaper than curative, especially because "even though doctors use of preventative techniques cuts down medical costs greatly" implied that curative didn't cut down costs, or at least not as much. And while it might imply that, we don't need that premise for our conclusion to follow. We don't need preventative medicine to be cheaper or more cost effective than curative to bring down the overall cost of medicine. We're just saying that preventative offers the potential to reduce overall medicine costs even more. If curative is cheaper or the same price, cool, we don't really care.

Example analogy: I can spend 1 hour investing money in the stock market and 10 hours reading a book, even though investing money can save money ("cut down costs greatly"). If I want to be MORE cost effective, I'm not spending enough time investing.

The assumption here is that one hour is probably plenty of time to spend investing my money. It's not the case that investing money has to be cheaper than reading a book, rather we're just assuming that more time spent doing a certain thing will cut costs more.

PrepTests ·
PT122.S4.Q8
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Thursday, Aug 26 2021

I think what you have to realize is that even though the stim doesn't state it explicitly, it's suggesting that this method of identifying where a relic has been is only available if the pollen on that relic belongs to a unique plant (a plant that can be traced in one region). If there are no plants that are unique to that area, then we can't make a definitive ID. If you make this assumption, then you can more easily rule out AC C, because by noting that the stim implies that this method of ID doesn't work in all cases and that this method is just "one way/one clue" to ID, we don't care if we can't ID a relic because the pollen on it existed in plants that were found in several geographic regions.

AC A tripped me up because of the "human movement". I thought it was saying"Pollen on a relic is transported from one place to another when a human moves it", which is the same thing the stimulus is saying/implying about relics being moved. If I would have just read that wind could blow pollen from other regions onto the coin, A would have been much easier for me to accept. I hadn't considered "human movement" meant that a person traveling through a trade route in China could touch a relic (on the trade route in China) and transfer pollen from a region that coin had never visited.

PrepTests ·
PT122.S4.Q4
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Wednesday, Aug 25 2021

Like others, I read unusually here to mean that reporters are usually accurate about their stories, and thought that A didn't really do much to strengthen. I should have read E and realized how much it did in fact strengthen our argument and then re-read A to find a flaw in that AC. This isn't the first time "unusually" has been taken to mean exceptional instead of not usually. Noted.

PrepTests ·
PT131.S3.Q19
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Thursday, Sep 23 2021

I think you can totally get this question right without lawgic.

Even though this is a MBT question, this question is just begging us to fill in the conclusion at the end of the stimulus. The author starts by laying out this conditional statement(s). Then they say, "BUT CLEARLY, X". Without even knowing what X is, its obvious to see that the author is setting up a counterargument with this example. So I'm thinking already that I'm looking for something that tells us the conditional statement at the beginning is NOT THE CASE.

If we flesh out X, its saying that some people don't know the definitions of the words they utter. The missing implication or unstated assumption that would logically complete the argument is "...but they understand the word." The last sentence is implying that our conditional statement is not the case, that you can both understand a word and not know the dictionary definition. That is why E just intuitively works.

When I went back to A, I felt like it had to be true. But A is only true if we accept the conditional statement at the beginning. If that conditional statement is not the case, then A does not have to be true.

PrepTests ·
PT146.S3.Q16
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Thursday, Sep 23 2021

I missed "large" cooperative groups and I didn't like B because I felt like we had to assume there were large numbers present. Carefully read the stim... sigh.

PrepTests ·
PT146.S1.Q19
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Wednesday, Sep 22 2021

C is tricky."If you have an abstract knowledge of science, you are just as good or worse at evaluating practical science based arguments than than those who have no abstract knowledge of science (no knowledge of science at all)." Negated, it says if you have abstract knowledge you're better than those who have no knowledge. This is attractive bc it suggests that abstract knowledge in science actually is helping adults is helping adults in their every day lives at least in some way, and that the skills being taught are useful. This is sort of accounted for in our argument by "very seldom", which acknowledges that sometimes the abstract knowledge can be useful. C is also sketchy because its making a comparison, and we have no reason to think that any comparison to people with no abstract knowledge MUST be true. Maybe this AC could weaken our argument a little bit because it does cast some doubt on the premises. But it doesn't wreck our conclusion in any way.

PrepTests ·
PT146.S1.Q17
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Wednesday, Sep 22 2021

I think part of what got me on this question was "average commute time for workers in downtown increased". I thought, do they mean workers driving downtown? Or people who work downtown, but who might live in the suburbs and are driving to get there? If it was the latter, I was thinking that there could be backup on the highways OR backup downtown OR backup in a suburb. So I didn't choose E because I didn't think the stim identified the area where the commute time was increasing. I suppose "in" implies that they are currently driving downtown...

The other thing that makes E almost too obvious is that its not really like most RRE questions. Usually, the AC finds some other, unrelated phenomenon or some other factor that is affecting the stim. But congestion, which is mentioned already in the beginning of the stimulus, seems so close a concept to increasing commute time. This question seems so easy looking at it now; wish I could get back in my head as I was taking it to identify where exactly I went wrong.

PrepTests ·
PT148.S1.Q16
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Tuesday, Sep 21 2021

Tricky question. I went through this so fast, wrongly choosing B because I thought the flaw was that the author rejected the air traffic control tapes simply on the basis that they are partial (which is a flaw at play, but not the one the ACs go for). I barely paid attention to the rest of the stim, which compared that evidence to the pilot reports, which are said to be more reliable because they are thorough. I think this is really tricky because the bias isn't readily apparent. We're talking about self reporting whether a flight goes off course while landing, which seems pretty objective to me. Why would a pilot give inaccurate info about whether they went off course? This made the flaw harder to see, at least for me. (for example, if it was something more like doctors reporting whether they are cordial to their patients, well yeah that's very subjective and people tend to think they're good and nice) But even if pilots are self reporting their landing data, its possible they don't even realize they're going off course. So they're not intentionally trying to give biased data.

Then the AC's are tricky.

With B, I didn't think that veering off course necessarily meant a pilot "made a mistake". What if wind steered the plane off course?

E is worse, though, because of "accurate information"-- maybe its accurate but just not reliable because its partial. And the fact it says "specific flights" is just so irrelevant. This is an example of me reading D and interpreting it to say what I want it to say instead of what it actually means.

PrepTests ·
PT124.S1.Q6
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Wednesday, Aug 18 2021

This question (specifically the ACs) blows. The gap in the argument is that just because these two bands share complex rock and witty lyrics does not necessarily suggest that Jackie is going to like MV. What if she likes the lead singer of MV and that is the only reason she likes MV? So the assumption in the argument is that part of why she likes MV is because she likes complex rock and witty lyrics. That has to be true.

None of the ACs try to address this gap in any way. I think A and C are the only real contenders. While A does provide a shred of support by offering another way the two bands are similar, I still think it's asking us to make so many assumptions, as others have stated. I guess by POE A has to be right, but I think I just need to let this one go....

User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Tuesday, Aug 17 2021

For AC C, without the second half of the sentence ("and all city councillors agree...services"), you'd be right to say that we're not really weakening the argument because why should we care about those exempt from city taxes? After all, the stim tells that "taxes should be used to benefit the people who pay them", which is why we're raising the bus fare to target non-tax payers.

But then when we read through the second half of AC C, we see why we should care about these people who are exempt from city taxes: because just as the councillors think that taxpayers should benefit from city-run services, they also think that these disadvantaged people should be able to take advantage of them, too.

Therefore, now that we know the councillors care about these people's ability to use city services, we know that if this measure made it harder for disadvantaged people to use city services, it would at the very least make the city councillors think twice about the proposal.

@ for weakening/strengthening questions, this not unusual, especially with causation questions. Think of this not so much as an entirely new premise, but as an assumption the author made/didn't make that we are either going to affirm/reject. So, if this was a regular (not except) weakening question, I would say that what C is doing is calling out an assumption the author is making--that this proposal is not going to negatively impact something the councillors also care about-- and then saying that it shouldn't have made that assumption, because such a thing is true; this proposal _is_going to impact something the councillors also care about.

User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Tuesday, Aug 17 2021

If I'm understanding your confusion properly, I think the solution might be that Q stem explicitly states that the following conclusions (aka the AC's) refer to ice ages. So I read every question,"In a typical ice age, [insert ac]". Does that help?

PrepTests ·
PT146.S4.P3.Q21
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Thursday, Sep 16 2021

I thought 21 was pretty tough. It says in line 17 that SB identified the tokens as these precursors to abstract written word in her book. And I thought that sort of strongly implied that even though she wasn't the first to discover the tokens (others discovered them and thought they were game pieces or whatever), she was the first to assign the proper meaning to them. So with that, I thought D would have been wrong if it said "the object was not the subject of scrutiny until SB". But because it said that the specific way it represented meaning--as abstract language--wasn't discussed until SB. But I guess we really have no support for that, still. Scientists could have been discussing the possibility that they were related to written word before SB's groundbreaking study. I totally missed line 10.

For 22, D, the timeline is off. Her observations are of inscriptions on envelopes that are dated before 4000AD. If the timeline was right, I think D is more convincing because how could you theorize that the envelope w/ tokens is a record of something if the people who used them never meant for them to be placed in there? What if it was a really arbitrary thing they were doing, and just needed somewhere to contain all these tokens? But still, the fact that they've found hundreds of these envelopes with tokens in them makes the odds of their placement/inscription being haphazard sort of low.

I got burned in this question because in my prephrase I was thinking of something wrong with SB's prior knowledge, that maybe those inscriptions of later known farm products were also used as inscriptions for food or clothing or something else...maybe the inscriptions denoted two things. I wasn't considering the fact that maybe SB is just wrong and the envelopes/tokens were used for a totally different purpose. Good reminder not to get too hung up on your prephrase.

PrepTests ·
PT144.S4.Q20
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Tuesday, Sep 14 2021

The thing that really trips me up about this question is the comparative aspect. I understand this is a bridging assumption. And that if we negate E (participants dont have freedom of expression and public forums' effectiveness will be just fine still), it wrecks the idea that you need freedom of expression for public forums to play their role (being an important tool of democracy).

Here's where I'm confused: how that idea the conclusion? The conclusion says you need as much freedom of expression as you did in public squares for the internet to be an important democratic tool. Why do we get to disregard the possibility that there was no freedom of expression in public squares? If that's the case, and those squares functioned effectively for democracy, then we wouldn't need freedom of expression on the internet. Ugh I am SO confused by this... any #help would be awesome, thanks! #help

PrepTests ·
PT144.S4.Q3
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Tuesday, Sep 14 2021

I was between A and D, probably overthinking. The reason I didn't like D was because I thought that these animals, since they have to at least be somewhat rare before they're declared officially endangered (a totally healthy, non-declining species wouldnt be considered endangered), were already rare and thus desirable for collectors. But I was definitely making a huge assumption with that. And even if the assumption held, you'd think that officially declaring something to be rare would make the desire go up even more. Also, what we need to account for is the fact that this species is declining, then when it is declared endangered and supposed safeguards kick in, it declines EVEN FASTER. D takes this increased rate into account.

A, on the other hand, does not help us. I was attracted to it because I thought that maybe it takes a very long time to list the animal as endangered so that by the time it is officially listed, it's too late to save it. But even if this is what the AC is saying (many years is a red flag), it would be totally compatible with the stim for the rate of species to steadily decline until extinction. Why would there be a rapid decrease all of a sudden? A does not help us explain that at all-- we're still left asking questions.

PrepTests ·
PT144.S1.P3.Q16
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Monday, Sep 13 2021

For #16, I think E is also wrong because really, we didn't get any evidence that proves the effectiveness of the belts. We were just told that the belt was effective and were given a description of how the belt functioned. You can imagine that for E to be right, we would have been told something like, "during one key moment of disagreement, these two specific leaders used the belts to keep the peace." That's evidence. Just saying, "it framed and enforced the confederacy for years" is just a statement.

PrepTests ·
PT133.S2.Q20
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Thursday, Aug 12 2021

Let's sort of simplify this argument to take out the confusion with the Samantha situation:

P1: the murderer was in the office

P2: S and H were in the office

Sub Conclusion: H is not the murderer

Conclusion: S is the murderer

This makes it clear to see that the only way this conclusion can follow is if S and H are our only options; if they're the only ones in the office. AC C makes this argument totally airtight: Given the above, if C is true, Samantha is automatically the murderer. Period. (If this were a flaw question, it would be super easy to ID the flaw as a false dilemma).

But then the stim and ACs give us all this other information about fingerprints and adds confusion with DeMorgans law. Here's the information we get in between P2 and Sub Conclusion above:

P3: Hmurder-->hisFingfound or hisFootfound

P4: Smurder-->Fingavoid AND Footavoid (split this arrow)

P5. Fingfound and /Footfound

P6. Since Fingfound are not H's AND /Footfound...

SC: H is not the murderer

In spite of all of this information, if AC C is true, our conclusion that S is the murderer STILL FOLLOWS! Knowing that fingerprints were found doesnt really do a whole lot for the conditional statement we have about Samantha. Even if we were to equate avoiding leaving fingerprints with actually leaving fingerprints, P5 (Fingfound) only allows us to affirm the necessary condition for Smurder-->Fingavoid AND Footavoid. So is S the murderer knowing her fingerprints were found? Maybe she is; maybe she isnt!

E is more of a NA answer....

Conclusion: Samantha is the murderer. So by affirming the sufficient condition given in the stimulus, we can conclude from that that: Smurder-->Fingavoid AND Footavoid (split arrow). In other words, Samantha is the murderer, and she did avoid either leaving fingerprints or footprints. Be careful that you aren't interpreting P4 as a reversal: Fingavoid (or even Fingfound-->Smurder)

This question was one where C just looked too obvious so I totally overthought the entire thing.

PrepTests ·
PT155.S4.Q18
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Saturday, Oct 09 2021

Another reason we can eliminate D is because it is baiting you to think this drawback wrecks our conclusion by suggesting that thick walled homes were better for AC. So what? Thick walled homes could have very well been better at containing AC air. But we don't need that to be false for our conclusion to stand. Our stim is simply arguing that thin walled homes "generally sold well". They could have sold well despite not containing the AC air as well as thick walled homes.

PrepTests ·
PT142.S1.Q17
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Wednesday, Oct 06 2021

A hinges on the implication that if these two objects are only found within a small radius, that means they are pretty much both found in the same place. In the place we see white glass, we also see purple Han and vice versa. Then you must push this inference farther to say that if these things were found in a very large radius, say, scattered throughout China, theres a chance that the glass and the purple Han were not found together. If A would have said that fragments of both were found near one another, it would have been such an obvious correct AC, because if they were not found near one another, it really weakens our argument.

User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Wednesday, Oct 06 2021

All the advice above is so great. This isn't directly answering your question, but maybe something that can help you avoid that situation altogether...focus on process. When I am in this position, it's usually because I read a rule wrong or missed something in the stimulus. As a result, I've been SO strict with myself when it comes to LG process. I double check all the rules and make sure I understood them correctly (ex. reading L and R go together instead of L and R cannot go together). Then when I make gameboards if I'm splitting, I try to do a quick double check against the rules to make sure everything looks correct.

User Avatar

Saturday, Sep 04 2021

13jmfrank157

PT11 S4 Q21 - hard weakening question

When I first did this question, I crossed everything off and was left with E. I almost chose it, and then I thought it felt a lot like a trap AC...

The stimulus is telling us that if a resource becomes scarce, new technologies that create the ability to use new resources arise. As people start using these new alternative resources, the demand for the original resource declines, and whatever amount is then present in that original resource can be sold to those who still want it. Then they give some examples of things that were once the sole resource for a thing, but were then supplemented by other resources. The author asserts that bc new technologies are constantly replacing old ones, (conclusion:) we can never run out of natural resources.

E says that the biological requirements for substances like air and water will not be impacted by technological change. I thought, at first, this meant that "there are some resources that technology cannot replace". But then I second guessed myself and thought, "what do we really care if the biological requirements of that thing-- not the thing itself-- is unaffected by technological change? Even if technology can't change the fact that water needs hydrogen and oxygen to be water, couldn't technology develop different resources that could replace water and air in the future?" Couldn't we use other liquids(not water) or other kinds of energy(not air) to, for example, power things? Is the assumption here that water and air, as necessary for life, are not interchangeable with anything else? Like, if water runs out and technology can't replace it, we CAN run out of important natural resources?

Using the example in the passage of trees: sure, the biological requirements of a tree -- what makes a tree a tree-- is not affected by technology. But we can make steel or plastic, a new substance entirely, to serve the same purpose of that wood.

I ended up choosing C over E after I re-read the ACs because I was thinking that if companies won't invest in the new technologies, they won't be created in the first place. I didn't love the words "at first" and I knew my reading of the AC was assuming things, but I just thought that E was sort of irrelevant but attractive.

What am I missing? #help

User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Saturday, Sep 04 2021

I know this is an old thread, but looking for some input:

Before even getting to the ACs, I knew I needed something that helped ensure that the actual cost of the TP was in fact currently higher than the TP. This AC D was the only one that addressed that, so I picked it and moved on. Somehow in BR, though, I got all turned around and thought it was saying the opposite (That TP was (PPP) and I changed my answer.

I could totally see myself making a reading error under time and changing it under timed conditions, too.

Any thoughts on how common it is that we would see a trap AC that did the same thing as D but in reverse? Or is it a generally safe rule to just sort of blindly choose that bridging AC without totally working out the math? #help(/p)

PrepTests ·
PT151.S1.P3.Q18
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Monday, Aug 02 2021

18. I chose A because I inferred from lines 35-38 that if the kinds of operas where music was subordinated were limited in appeal...AKA UNPOPULAR.... then we could assume that the other two types of operas-- including the ones where words are subordinated to music-- were generally popular.

I think it might be disputable whether that is an acceptable assumption to make, but I think the "primarily" in AC A is what really tanks this AC.

D was unattractive to me because I didn't feel like we knew enough about legitimacy to make that determination, nor did we know about "other operas". It's as legitimate as the German operas, yes, but is it as legitimate as the third kind mentioned? or is there a fourth or fifth kind of opera?

User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Friday, Oct 01 2021

Hi! My score dipped a bit a few weeks ago when I dove into the 80s, since test week was getting closer. I don't think the 80s are "harder"-- everyone has different strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the test. But they are different from the 50s and 60s. Particularly, I find the language is less straightforward. So just try to familiarize yourself with the rhythm and the subtleties of this as much as possible before test day. And be sure to end your studying on a positive note so that you're walking into test day in the best possible headspace. You've got this!

PrepTests ·
PT154.S4.Q23
User Avatar
13jmfrank157
Friday, Oct 01 2021

E: this is telling us that ok, the stim gave us two consequences of driving w a passenger that are beneficial, but let me address another thing that could happen when you're driving with someone: they keep talking. In that scenario, talking on the phone is the same level of dangerousness or less dangerous than the situation when a person keeps blabbing. So even if the two things outlined in the stim don't happen, and this third thing happens-- they continue to speak-- AC E is telling us that there's really no difference in danger between that and talking on a cell phone; if anything, talking on a cell phone could be less dangerous. This is putting the cellphone talking and passenger in the car on the same level of dangerousness. But we need the cell phone to win! So this AC doesnt do anything. When you consider the negated version-- talking on the phone is MORE dangerous than talking in the car to someone who keeps speaking-- our argument is strengthened...but negating should destroy the argument. So this isn't an NA.

A: the stim is comparing talking to someone on the phone (1) or talking to someone in the car (2). 1 is more dangerous because they cant be quiet or give helpful tips. In situation 2, they can be quiet or give tips. A is telling us the only time speaking to a driver can help us out is when they're giving helpful tips. And what do we know about talking on the cell phone? that person cannot provide helpful tips. So they cant be helpful. So it must be that talking on the phone is the more dangerous type of talking out of the two scenarios. Negated, A clearly wrecks the argument: talking to a driver in a difficult situation does not increase the dangerousness, EVEN IF the person driving is not providing helpful warnings. This tells us that the people on the cell phone who arent giving helpful warnings dont increase the dangerousness of the situation, wrecking our argument.

Confirm action

Are you sure?