Just because something is not empirically true, does not make my belief about it not right.

For example, I believe the earth is flat. But it has been conclusively proven that the earth is round. Does this mean my belief is wrong?

Empirically yes. However, in terms of belief no.

I am arguing on the grounds of what I believe, in other words, what my perception of the world to be, which may be independent of what is true in the real world.

My belief about earth's shape is independent of what is factually true about it.

Same goes for the idea of UFO, E.T, Unicorns, and Centaurs.

(I don't think the earth is flat btw)

I solved this a bit different.

1. To be Horrific (H), must be Threatening (T).

2. If a Physically Dangerous (P), It is also Threatening

3. If Revulsion (R), then Physical Benign (in other words, not Physically Dangerous), is also Horrific.

H→T

P→T

R→/P→H

H→T

-----------------------

R→/P→H→T

(E) R,/P→T "Not Physically Dangerous, are Threatening."

These "hard questions" really seem to come down to proper ways of reasoning.

Yes, (A) may seem to have the same structure, but using our reasoning correctly, the argument it presents isn't necessarily true.

I'm not saying that our jobs in Parallel Method of Reasoning Questions are to judge the argument. But usually when you question the truth of an Answer choice after reading, when your intuition starts to feel iffy about it, in some cases the answer choice is wrong.

(D) On the other hand as a similar structure to (A) and the Original Premise, but the truth of the claim is far stronger than (A). One can't as easily question the premise in (D) since it isn't a subjective statement, nor is it saying that this is the only factor for X, it's just stating a fact about tree rings.

The soundness of the argument matches the stimulus and the structure.

I think having a more nuanced/reasoning approach can sometimes be needed to closely eliminate similar answer choices.

You don't need to use numbers to answer this question, but do need to understand more so the idea of proportionality.

This question is a carbon copy of, PT18 S2 Q20.

To be a lawyer can be a heavy burden. If you think about it, one doesn't go to a lawyer for the usual "check-up" usually it's when something drastic or life threatening/changing is occurring. Usually it's at the lowest points of peoples lives, depending on the career you want to do.

I'm sure the stress and responsibility can be overwhelming for some.

Regardless if ones ignores their self care issues or not, sometimes it just comes down to the nature of this profession.

Being a lawyer isn't for everyone.

Finding a balance between the demands of work and personal life seems to be the key though.

I got this question correct. But I think you need to understand the concept of "Profit" for one to understand what the Supervisor is trying to imply with his statement.

Whats the "apparent" issue here?

The current mergers have undermined employees job security. In other words, there are fewer jobs available. Yet, employees perception towards their own jobs have not changed, and they feel very secure in fact.

Well, that is interesting, how can it be that though there may be fewer jobs in general, employees still feel secure about their own job security?

One can make many explanations for this, maybe the diminishing of jobs happened in only a specific sector of the large corporation, and thus certain employees feel that they are not going to be affected. Regardless, let's look for some other reasons why.

A) Is it because people in both surveys work in small companies which will not be affected by the mergers? Well, yea that can explain why though there is a downsizing of jobs going on certain employees still feel secure about their own job security. They are not being affected by it.

B) Is it because employees who feel secure about their own jobs tend to think that other people jobs are also secure? Wait, what? Why would that matter? How does thinking that because I think my job is secure, I also think other peoples jobs are also secure help? I mean thanks for letting me know that I also think that other people's jobs are also secure but aren't we talking about my own job security in relation to the downsizing of jobs in general? This is irrelevant and cannot serve as an explanation for this "apparent" discrepancy.

C) The downsizing was widely anticipated. Well, if it was widely anticipated then this can explain why it was not so surprising and also why perception hardly changed. Since they already knew it was going to happen. Possibly they could have planned accordingly and not enrolled in jobs that were going to be downsized and thus showing us why their perception about their security of their own job remained optimistic and the same.

D) If most of the jobs that were going to be downsized happened within one year after the first survey, then this can help us understand why in 1994 most people felt that their jobs were secure. Again why? Because most of the jobs that were downsized happened a few years earlier. Thus the qualms about whether one's jobs were at stake probably decreased.

E) The employees are generally more optimistic. Well, that in a way can explain it too. Why is it that these people feel that their jobs are secure even though evidence suggests that there are fewer jobs available? Well, its because the mindset of these people is generally more optimistic in the face of discouraging evidence. Well okay, that explains why though there is evidence that suggests merges have caused the downsizing of jobs these people in the face of this, feel that their own jobs are still secure. They are simply just optimistic people.

Imperturbable can also mean calm.

Lol this question is so relevant.

A little late to the post...

But a speech by him that I listen to constantly is "Unfulfilled Dreams" by MLK.

You can find it on youtube or spotify. Hope it gives you or anyone else motivation.

(A) and (C) Are all doing what the fallacy in the argument is saying is not okay to do.

(D) on the other hand, in broad terms, re-describes why arguing in this manner is irrelevant to dismissing a certain argument. You can't attack the track record of the person or that person but rather the reasons to believe their message. Which again, is the crux of the argument made in the stimulus.

You don't have to use logic to write off D, but you do at a more informal/conceptual level need to see why it's wrong in terms of its reasoning used. D if you read it in detail deals with probability, " Probably not" that is not similar to that language/reasoning used in the original stimulus, "will not."

In addition, the original argument rests upon the idea that supporting an action will actually create harm, so that action will not be performed. However, one cannot assume that these tax laws that the companies will have to pay will be harmful, yes it would seem to be inconvenient (since in reality who wants to pay taxes) but again, that isn't the point, the point is that this doesn't necessarily imply that it is or isn't harmful.

So really D doesn't match the reasoning used in the original stimulus.

I have read in Asha's posts that those that lie about receiving help is also negatively frowned upon. To what degree I forget but you can dig more on her blogs to see. She wrote that they actually research into whether or not you have received help. I am guessing in some cases ones information does show up. If for example, you took a class or used resources with Testmasters or whatever.

So it's best to just say that you have if you did. Why lie? I am planning on doing the same.

The question I believe gages the integrity of that person.

Slippery Slope Argument

I read (A) a bit differently for it to make sense for me. Hope it helps anyone.

A) Extending the scope for judging/evaluating the usefulness of going with the new regulation.

Q argument:

If we complied with the new safety regulations it will prevent some accidents and whenever there is an accident in the lab. Even if money is wasted.

So If we did X then Y will happen...Okay well this argument really does assess the usefulness of what would happen if we went with the new regulation. Which (A) really captures what argument Q is actually doing.

Basis: Scope

Assessing: judge/evaluating

Utility: usefulness/effectiveness

Complying: Going with

To say that something is inadequate is to say that something is incapable of explaining or doing what is desired. It just doesn't do what you want it to do. It's weak or faulty.

It's like trying to fit a triangle in a circle. It's not good enough or just doesn't really work.

The response made by the smoker never argues that funding the campaign through smokers won't work or won't be good enough to reach the desired goal. He argues that it is unreasonable or planely just not fair to put that cost on these peoples.

Thus, what (C) actually says never happens.

(A) on the other hand works really well because the smoker is attacking the reasoning used. What's the reasoning? "that people whose unhealthful habits cause many health problems → should bear the cost"

The smoker later illustrates another example where people with unhealthful habit who do cause health problems, still shouldn't be required to bear the cost. Why? Well just because you may cause health related problems does not necessarily mean you should bear the responsibility in solving those problems.

This example, counters (weakens/calls into question) the reasoning used in support of the politicians conclusion.

Those who do not take penicillin (A) → Developed penicillin resistance (B). (Stimulus)

Those who do also take penicillin → Developed penicillin resistance. (Question Stem)

Structurally,

/A→B

A→B

What gives?

The information offered in the question stem, " that some patients who take penicillin develop bacteria with an immunity to penicillin"... how does this function within the argument?

Well it really highlights the fact that regardless of whether or not someone takes penicillin, it still leads to penicillin resistance. So the question remains, what is causing this effect?

The argument further goes on to explain what may be going on and offers a hypothesis.

But what we are asked to do is, answer how do this unstated assumption work within our argument if it were true?

Well basically, this unstated assumption coupled with what we know by the phenomena, shows us why this has led scientists to begin to analyze genes, in order to see if this explains why penicillin resistance is occurring. (the problem)

(C)" Generates the problem that promoted the research described in the passage" this characteristically describes what was going on in the passage.

What problem? Penicillin resistance occurring

Prompted what researched? The research of scientist now looking into Genes to see if this explain why penicillin resistance is occurring.

If you see that. Then the rest of the wrong AC become clear for why they are not correct.

Context: Many popular psychological theories are porr theories in that they are inelegant and do not help to dispel the mystery that surrounds our psyche.

MC: This is not really important

Why?

MP: The theories produce the right results.

P: Therapeutically, they tend to have greater success than their more scientific rivals.

Many popular psychological theories are poor theories in that they are inelegant and do not help to dispel the mystery that surrounds our psyche. .... How does this function within the argument?

Well, it specifically serves as the context. However, what it really is doing for the argument is that the critic, through this information, is conceding some points that may be objectifiable for accepting the arguments conclusion, that the theories produce the right results.

He's like saying, yea there are some faults to these theories but really those aren't too important. So you don't have to worry (or in this case, you don't have to attack these faults). Since they are not important to what is....and what is... is the claim that these theories produce the right results

A) This information does not seek to disprove anything. Nor is it to disprove any evidence against the theory. The information is more so used as an acknowledgment that there are faults, but its used as a means to avoid it from being attacked or being provided with counter arguments against it's claim. Its not trying to show by this information that anything said toward this theory is false or wrong.

B) Exactly, it acknowledges such faults in order to override such considerations ( or attacks) that could or would be used against these theories.

C) This information is not meant to show that the theory is better. We actually don't even know if the theory is better than their rivals. All we know is that these theories tend to have greater success and produce the right results.

This does not mean that they are better. More specifically though, that key information is not suggested to show that the theories are better. That isn't their purpose.

D) This is not meant to show us what the critic finds "the most important." In fact, we don't know what he finds as "the most important." All we know is that inelegance and not dispelling the mystery are really not that important. But does this fact show us what he/she actually sees as the most important? No.

We can maybe suspect that what he does find important is that the theories produce the right results. But still this is just one important aspect that he considers. It's not meant to show that this is now the most important aspect that he considers.

This Detail Issue comes up a lot in other questions like that of PT. 34 S.3 Q.14 Answer Choice (C). Where "Never matches" is stated in the answer choice and "Frequently does not match is stated in the stimulus.

Point is, be careful of modifiers or certain phases, because they can really change the meaning of a word or phrase in a sentence. In both cases, attention to detail is very important, but also in this question, one cannot assume that just because we know of an important aspect that the critic considers, that this therefore shows us that he/she considers this aspect as the most important. These statements have two different meanings and thus do not characteristically represent each other.

E) The information is used to show that the theories are not free from explanatory power as one thought to have believed. No.

C: homer was not translated into Arabic until years later

A) A number of Arabic translators had manuscripts of the Homer epic in greek. (In other words- they were at least not translated into Arabic since they are in Greek)

This feels like a NA answer choice because if one negates this answer choice and which states that Arab translators did not posses manuscripts of Homer in Greek, then possibly this gives credence to the idea that Homer may have been translated into Arabic or at least the idea that it was not translated into Arabic is less true, since know we don’t know if it was or was not.

one would think okay, A number of Arabic translators had manuscripts of the Homer epic in greek. Okay, but what did they do with it? Because they have original copies in Greek does this mean they translated into Arabic or not. Well since they have Homer in its original form its at least true that those text are not translated in Arabic.

Which subtly gives me reason to believe/ strengthen the argument made.

I think whats hard about this question is answer choice A and how subtly its stated and how well it works with the argument. At first glance I passed this off but feeling like it might of been the right answer I went back and saw what it was actually doing. NA,PSA,SA all strengthen the argument to some degree. In this case, this feels so plainly stated that it seems wrong, but like in regular NA, this is the right answer because this is what has to at least be true for the argument to work. If its not true then the argument is wrecked or weakens at least.

B) A similar story, Arabian Nights, also has simpler parts of the homer epic. That’s fine. But was Homer translated or not? Who cares if other things are similar to Homer. The argument is not about whether Greek Text influence Arabic text. The argument is that Greek text is often transcribed into Arabic and in this case for Homer it was not transcribed until modern times.

The question is why?

C) So know we know that Arabic Translators produce Arabic editions of text that are also translated from Indian and Persian languages. But how does this help the idea that Homer, a Greek text, was not translated in Medieval Arab times and only until years later?

D) Poetics was frequently cited by modern Arab poets. But are they interested in it? Thats the really question. I can cite and comment on sources and still be so little interested in that source.

If they were interested then maybe based upon the stimulus that if one is interested in Poetics one would also be read Homer. If thats the case then, (inference) one may understand why Homer was not translated into Arabic until modern times since only then when Modern Arabic Poets who eventually became interested in Poetics then became interested in Homer as well. But again, by just showing that you cite and comment on something does this warrant desire/interest in something? One would have to assume yes. Which you cannot do.

E) Drama was written and performed by Medieval Arabs, that’s find but does this give me reason to believe that Homer was not translated into Arabic? All we know know is more context in which Poetics was written and performed under.

Great Logic Practice Question.

The argument rest upon your ability to intuitively understand or logical parse out this statement.

" Only if the government steps in an provides the homeless with house will this problem disappear, and this necessitates increased taxation. For this reason, we should raise taxes"

There are three logical statements in here.

Only if the government steps in an provides the homeless with house" which is a necessary condition for, will this problem disappear

and this necessitates increased taxation means that 'this' referring to the problem disappearing, is necessary for increased taxation. Which means then that taxation is a sufficient condition for this problem disappearing.

In total we have,

Increased taxation →this problem disappearing→only if the gov't steps in and provides homeless with house.

-------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, we should raise taxes

Symbolically this looks like:

A→B→C

-------

A

Goal: What I need now is a principle that logically connects the ideas and mold the argument correctly. This would in turn strengthen the argument.

------------------------------------------------------------

A) "Only if" We need to be using the sufficient condition 'A' to arrive to solving the problem not a necessary condition.

B)"Only if" We need to be using the sufficient condition 'A' to arrive to solving the problem not a necessary condition.

C) "If a measure is necessary" No this measure is sufficient to solve a problem.We need to me using A which is a sufficient condition for our desired claim. Wrong.

D) Correct. If a measure is sufficient then it should be adopted. Which fits the mold of what we are trying to explain.

E) "any step necessitated from the sufficient measure should be adopted." Wrong. B or C are not what we are claiming should be adopted. It's in fact 'A - to increase taxes' is what we want to do.

What a loaded question. It seems with these strengthening question ATTENTION TO DETAIL is everything. Every word counts. I guess this also applies to other Q-types but still.

To break down the core of this argument simply:

Since everyone knew it was a lie → then saying a lie→ should not be seen as wrong.

[ "Everyone knew no book can deliver success →then saying something false→should not be unethical"]

--------------------------------------------------------

The whole point of why everyone knew that no book can deliver upon becoming successful was because it seemed unreasonable, since success is limited.

--------------------------------------------------------

What we are giving in the AC are instances that say a lie should be seen as wrong.

So then, a lie should be seen as wrong only if it is reasonable enough for someone to believe that it may not a have been lie (in other words, accept that lie as true)

A) gets as close to being a principle that fits the stimulus description and serves as support for the argument claim.

B)"Gain at the expense of those acting as if the claim were true" Not descriptively accurate to what's going on here.

C) "Suffer Hardships"? Not descriptively accurate to what's going on here.

D) This one was tough to eliminate. But again attention to detail. it's not about whether or not they will ACT as if it were true. It's about reasonably believing or accepting that the lie they were told was actually tue.

E) Potato answer. "discovering the claim as false" Who is discovering? Not descriptively accurate to the situation therefore cannot be a principle that strengthens the argument.

Main Premise:

This is proven to be true by a study.

Sub Conclusion,

Quitting is hard to do because it leads to stress and also leads to weight gain,

---------------------------------

Main Conclusion:

The key to quitting smoking is replacing it with an healthy activity

There are two points of attack for me.

1. The study, is it legit?

2. The relationship between stress and weight gain and one's ability to quit or not.

Since we are strengthening the argument then we have to strengthen those weakness.

A) Gets at 2. In that if one regularly exercises it prevents weight gain, which may help with reducing the difficulty of quitting. Allowing for the possibility to increase the likelihood that a person if he/she chooses to partake in a healthy activity can increase the chances of he/she quit smoking.

Which again strengthens the claim that

Replacing an unhealthy act with a healthy act can be the key to quit smoking.

B) This strengthen the validity of the study. Stating that the study has conducted its sample as a simple random sample.

C) Nonsmokers, well this argument is about smokers or those trying to quit smoking. So telling me about anyone else for that matter is irrelevant to the core argument being made here.

D) Similar to A reasoning on why it strengthens the argument.

E) Strengthens the validity of the studies results.

Hypothesis/Phenomena:

New pesticide was more effective than the old pesticide in reducing the loss of certain fruit by insects.

Question stem asks: If we have a group of trees that did not show a reduction in the loss of fruit by insects.(Meaning, that the insects affected the trees reduction of fruit loss in greater or equal amounts amounts)

What added to this situation can strengthen then the original causal claim then?

B) Since we are comparing two things, and have argued that the newer pesticide is more effective, adding this information to the above question stems, illustrates that the old pesticide is less effective when utilized. Since using the old pesticide rather than the new pesticide results in no reduction loss of fruit when affected by insects. Thus, weakening the old pesticides effectiveness.

Which in turn, strengthen the original causal claim that the newer pesticide is more effective compared to the the older pesticide, in terms of reducing fruit loss.

Whether you understand what a rebate is or not, what must be clear to you is the arguments claim. What is the argument claiming?

That X (a rebate on a product)

Will not increase sales and be unprofitable for manufacturers.

This is the argument's core. Having this structure outlined and clear in your head or on paper can help you see how the other answer choices are wrong and why (C) is the only answer that even remotely gets to the arguments weakness (Assumption) and relevancy of its topic.

A) People tend to believe that using more product is more effective. That's great. But why would this give me reason to believe that a rebate will not increase sales and be unprofitable? Who cares what people believe? Like, aren't we trying to strengthen the idea that using a rebate on a product will not increase sales and be unprofitable?

okay so believing doing more of X will cause the product to be more effective. But just because you believe something to be true does not mean it's actually true. Regardless if it were true it still wouldn't strengthen the argument claim at all since...

Telling me that people believe using more bald ointment is more effective is totally off topic to whether a rebate would actually lead to no increase in sale and be unprofitable.

B) This ointment is more effective on some heads than on others...Again, that's great. But why would this strengthen the claim that a rebate will not increase sales and be unprofitable? You can't assumes quantity here, in that, you assume that only a few people have the ability to get this ointment to work so therefore it won't be profitable and won't increase sales. That's wrong. Also, how much more effective? like unusually more effective? or just enough were they stop losing hair?

Way too many assumptions here and what we really need to be doing is strengthening the counter for why offering a rebate is not a good idea. This is totally off topic.

C) If offered, the rebate, will not attract purchasers who might not use the ointment again. Whether you try to deeply understand the reason for why this could work, in reality on the test, one might not have time, but if your argument core is correct and you know what you must be strengthening, then you can see from this answer choice that this gives me a reason to believe even more so that "offering a rebate" - "will not increase sales and be unprofitable".

That's it. Move one. Trust your intuition.

D) Who cares what baldness is caused by? Where in the argument where we presuming that baldness was caused by anything? What's our argument again?

E) If produced in large quantities the ointment manufacturing cost does not fall significantly...so having a rebate on this product will not increase sales and be unprofitable? What does the cost of manufacturing have to do with offering a rebate and whether or not that a rebate will or will not increase sales? This doesn't give me reason to believe anything relative to our argument.