Running is a crucial factor in improving cardiovascular health. In a study, those who ran for an hour once a week and meditated improved their cardiovascular health as much as did those who swam for an hour once a week and meditated.

A. The meditating that the runners did in the study did not help them improve cardiovascular health.

B. Most people who have inferior cardiovascular health are able to run for an hour once a week.

C. Swimming is a crucial factor in improving cardiovascular health

D. People who run for an hour once a week are not damaging themselves physically.

E. Other forms of physical exercise are less effective than running in improving cardiovascular health.

*hope this helps! tried to make it similar in structure to the original stimulus. The gap in the argument is just an incomplete comparison.

I've managed a handful of 180 PT's, a couple this past week.

July score is a few points below. Re-taking in Sep.

Ctx: Some critics claim that space exploration programs are too costly to be justified. Most experts say 1-70 chance of explosion per flight

Premise: One program’s managers found manufacturing flaws that critics believe are a result of pressure to produce change quickly and cheaply.

Conclusion: Budgetary pressures to make the programs cheaper undermine safety.

A.) is the only AC within scope of stimulus. Yes it is true from the stimulus that attempting to solve one problem (costly space explorations) can lead to more problems (manufacturing flaws)

Premise:

1.) Traditional schools emerged out of the availability of inexpensive printed books.

2.) Books are gradually being taken over by electronic media right now.

Conclusion: Electronic media are bound to end traditional schools.

Gap/Anticipation: First thing I internally said was “Ok, so what, why do we still need print books anyways? What does that have to do with whether or not schools will continue to exist?”

But nonetheless, I got suckered into A because I saw the conclusion repeated twice.

The real flaw here is that the author is assuming that we need print schools for schools to survive. This would be a valid argument if it were the case that they were necessary, but the argument never makes this claim, so we can’t conclude that they are necessary.

The argument structure is not difficult:

Traditional Schools -----> Printed Books

/Printed Books

=/Traditional Schools

BUT we just don’t know that printed books are necessary.

Premise: Grievants are costly and having a mediator can help alleviate the costs, so we should look into getting a mediator.

Conclusion: But starting mediation late in the process would be ineffective.

Gap: We’re looking for something to help support why starting mediation late in the game will cause it to be ineffective.

This one stumped me. Major confidence error.

I originally chose E because I thought that it was bridging a gap in the argument that I anticipated. I thought maybe Sartore reviews way more films than Kelly and that’s why people like his reviews more, not because they are better but because he covers all the major box office hits, while Kelly only reviews like 3 low budget indie movies. But, even if Sartore reviews 100 movies a year and Kelly reviews 1 it still would do nothing to strengthen the stimulus. If we can prove that the 1 movie Kelly reviews also helps movie goers determine “whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movie” then the argument wouldn’t prove anything. Hence, the main flaw of the argument is incomplete comparison. The author just focuses on one component of what makes Sartore a better movie reviewer than Kelly, but what if Kelly can help movie goers discover something else (like if someone is unlikely to enjoy a movie), which is what C.) addresses, further strengthening the conclusion that Sartore is a better movie goer than Kelly.

Ctx: a company that is trying to collect payment on outstanding bills can assign those bills to a collection agency. The collection agency pays the company a portion then keeps the rest of the money.

Premise: companies receive only 15% of the total amount of outstanding bills.

Concl: it would behoove companies to seek payment on their customer’s outstanding bills on their own.

There are a lot of assumptions that are left unaccounrted for here. The one I initially picked up on was: what if when companies bypass a collection agency and pursue payment on their own they get significantly less than 15%.

When going through the AC I got tripped up on choosing between A and B. But after running the negation I see why A is necessary.

Negations:

A: -a company that pursued its debters on its own does not typically collect more than 15% of the total amount of the long outstanding bills that it is owed

B: -the cost to a company of pursuing debters on its own does exceed 15% of the total amount of those bills.

Idk if I’m reading into this too much but the reason I had a hard time choosing A is because just because it does not exceed 15% doesn’t mean companies should not be well advised to pursue debters without a collections agency. Maybe getting just 15% still saves them money because they are cutting out the middle man and getting paid directly.

Ctx: Profits are at an all-time low right now because of decreased demand

P1: If this continues (this referring to the current state of their profits being at an all-time low), then we will have to declare bankruptcy.

SC/Minor Premise: So it is important that we prevent any further decrease in profits

Main Conclusion: So we have to reduce planned expansion or eliminate some less profitable existing operations

Flaw/Gap: The argument assumes that there is no overlap between dropping the profits a little bit to dropping a large amount of profits sufficient to cause them to declare bankruptcy. The author is fallaciously ignoring or not accounting for this valid middle ground of the profits only dropping slightly but not enought to drive them into bankruptcy.

I would just like to point out a minor mistake committed.

Indeed, we are faced with a tautology (either/or but not both logical statement).

The correct answer choice however ought to be diagrammed as follows:

EL (does not elsewhere suggest a client undertake illegal activity) --------------> No purpose.

The answer choice posits "does not need legal protection" thus, it is still possible for the disclaimer to provide said protection but that it's not needed, ergo no purpose.

Abstract logic would, then, be the following:

Purpose -----> Provide legal protection

Suggest illegal ------> Not provide legal protection -------> no purpose

Not suggest illegal --------> no purpose

Either Suggest Illegal OR Not suggest illegal

Main Conclusion: No purpose.

In short, whilst the company does not need the legal protection emanating from the disclaimer, this has no bearing on what the disclaimer does or does not do. Therefore we cannot say it provides no legal protection. We can however, clearly determine, that it serves no purpose (not needed = no purpose).

This would be the correct way of diagramming.

#help this one really got me. I totally thought B reconciles the paradox because if the temperatures are way colder in charelsville during the night then they would have to pay more for heating expenses to keep them warm at night, hence higher heating bills. I don’t get how this is right

P1: Gasoline burned in automobiles produces a carcinogen: benzene

P2: Environmentalists: replace gasoline with methanol b/c it doesn't produce a lot of benzene when burned

P3: Author chimes in: no, don't follow what the environmentalists say since burning methanol produces formaldehyde--also a known carcinogen.

Conclusion: The environmentalist's claim has little merit

Gaps/Anticipation: The stimulus compares to carcinogens, but doesn't provide any information to distinguish them. We can strengthen the environmentalists' claim by simply adding that maybe formaldehyde is a less potent or serious carcinogen than benzene.

D.) matches anticipation exactly