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.

If I say that I have a packet of gum which I share with those in my class, and this packet contains only two types of flavors.

One of Cola and the other of Orange.

And if I say that the proportion of Cola flavored gum is less (rarer) than that of Orange flavored gum in this packet. Because Cola is the most popular flavor and thus shared the most.

What must be true about my packet of gum?

That the proportion of Orange flavored gum in my packet is more then that of the Cola flavored gum.

Same idea, different example.

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.

NA and Resolve and Reconcile skills can help in arriving to this question.

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.

This was so strange since the predicament seems so simple to answer, and yet the answer choices leave you a bit perplexed, and though I got this correct, I still felt a bit unsure.

His friends said that this particular picture does not resemble him at his wedding

John says it's the only picture that does resemble him at his wedding

What is going on?

A) The types of closes he usually wears?? Hmm well, if its something that he and his friends usually wear then why were they so adamant about the picture not resembling him? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suspect that they would think the opposite if we assumed that these types of clothes wore did depict John? This fact for me only further increases the mystery behind why they are in disagreement about this particular picture not representing him.

B) It was the only photo that had flash. Again, this requires one to assume that having flash effects ones ability to determine whether a photo resembles him or herself. I guess in the real world one can use flash to see more clearly faces. However, that point is mute since what we are concerned with is why doesn't this photo, whether we have flash or not, resemble John to his friends but John feels the opposite.

C) The photo taken was in black and white, and the others were in color. Okay... But does the absences of color effect how John perceive himself or how john's friend's view him? Is John like so white that he most identifies himself only in black and white? We would have to assume maybe it does for this to work. But that seems unreasonable. This to me doesn't get at why the friends and John were in disagreement, it doesn't help me understand why they are so at odds with the photo not resembling john.

D) It was a unique shot over the shoulder. Hmm, maybe the fact that it was shot in such unique way caused a disagreement between what John thought and what his friends thought. For me, this was the most reasonable answer there was, and honestly the only one that I had fewer reasons to eliminate it. POE elimination helped.

E) Almost like A if it was the only photo depicting John then why were they so at odds? I mean if he is the only person in the photo wouldn't it show that this photo is him or at the very least resembles him? But even if we hold this to be true John and his friends are still at odds, and again we are left with more questions, why?

Imperturbable can also mean calm.

I think this is a great question to improve your mindset on Resolve questions.

I think what most people including I had trouble with was finding a reason to explain this relationship. But I have to remember that our job here is not to try and look for an answer that independently explains why something could have occurred.

What we are trying to do is to see based on the 15% decrease in jobs in Loggin and Wood Processing and the 10% increase in the amount of wood taken in Ravonia (the discrepancy)

How is it possible that these two things could have occurred?

I think what the question is trying to get at here is that why does it seem not likely that even though there was a 10% increase in the amount of wood taken yet, there are supposedly fewer jobs available to export that wood.

What C does is points to this assumption that the "logging and wood processing" jobs are not the only jobs out there that export wood from the forest of Ravonia. In fact, since 1977 there is a growing size of timber being cut raw that it is unprocessed. In other words, some jobs that aren't "logging and wood processing jobs " have been exporting more wood that is unprocessed during this time.

Thus, showing why even though a sector of the industry decreased its employment there could still have been an increase in the amount of wood taken during this period. Again why? Because a different sector of the industry is exporting a different type of wood and thus increasing the amount of timber taken.

B) What B does is provides us with information that individually explains why the two apparent statements could have occurred.

However, we are not interested in why or how these two things individually could have happened. Our job is to look at the relationship between the two items and find a reason that helps us explain why even though the first statement seems contradictory to the second statement they could still have coexisted together.

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.

The core of this question for me was that,

This argument is a discussion of Red Herring Arguments in public policy. In essence what the author is basically telling us is that often Statistical arguments about health risks are often used to deflect and contribute little to a policy debate. Why? Because what happens, like in this example, we can be talking about automobile safety and then what can come up is an argument about comparable deaths to seatbelt safety. This seat belt safety example diverges away from the core argument being discussed, which points to the discussion of deflection talked about in the stimulus.

Similarly, like in (A) the argument is about Cancer by radiations emitted by Nuclear Power where then its argued that one gets more Cancer from the Sun. This is an attempt to falsely weaken and deflect the main discussion of the argument. But in reality it is just irrelevant, which is why it provides so little to the debate.

I think when you see and know what the argument is trying to discuss you can see then the underlying reasons for why the others are wrong and why A is ultimately right.

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.

I had a hunch it was (A) but choose (D) since I thought the argument was trying to get at the idea of whether or not we could actually prove something to be true, which i thought perception helped more with that. Regardless,

I believe the argument is really just trying to get at two basic ideas

P: That Attributions (the ability for us to convince others about a certain element about a painting)

C: should not have special weight on that painting

The question then becomes, why not?

A) Gives us a simple reason for why Attribution should not be given special weight. Why? Because there can be times where the act of our Attribution can be false and in this case can also be economical self interested. We try to attribute something, convince others into believing something to being true when in fact we know it's not true. If that's the case then this reason alone gives us enough merit to believe that maybe traditional attribution should not be given special weight to a painting since in some cases like these, sometimes those attribution are e untrue.

This also gets to the idea that attribution effects historical continuity as well, which may further be a reason for why we shouldn't put so much weight on it. Since if we are lying about a date or name of an art piece this may negatively affect the timeline of what is actually true about that artist or historical piece.

B) little convoluted but the reason for why attribute may not arise at this time is because there is no dispute upon that piece of work. Since from what we are told those judging that work are literally right there. This isn't applicable to the piece of artwork that we are concerned with.

C) The argument is not about whether we can see difference between art works. It's about whether our ability to attribute things to disputed works of art, should that be given special weight or not?

D) I got trapped because it felt reasonably to think that one's act of convincing others may shape an individual's perception. But literally, that isn't a bad thing or what's wrong with the argument made. Judging art is a matter of perception.The act of Attribution and whether we should give it credence or not does not rest upon whether it shapes our perception of how we marker masters and minor artists, this fact does not lend itself it helping us see whether if using attribution actually proves the truth of that disputed piece of artwork. This only tells us that there is a standard in which we can determine minor or master artists but does this fact strengthen the claim that therefore we should not give special weight to attribution?

The whole point of this argument is about using traditional attributions to prove elements about a disputed piece of art, whether it was made by some artist and what time is was actually painted. The argument is really just saying, hey that method we are using shouldn't really be used so strongly, since as (A) points out, there can be instance where people can abuse such a method for their own gain.