@Jsb9988 I think "gives rise to questions" means the questions are implied. If they wanted questions enumerated, it would say something more explicit like "described" or "outlined."

I chose B because we're talking about oracles and prophecies .. and surely we can't make the assumption that Greek plays are accurate depictions of Greek life .. right? Lmaoo

To be honest this question still confuses me. But regardless, the only support the stimulus gave us for its conclusions are whether or not each group hunts all year. All year = nomadic. /All year = /nomadic. That's really it. Idk how the colorations prove that but the whole argument rests on showing whether or not each group hunts all year.

C is the only answer that challenges that assumption for one of the groups

I think sometimes boiling arguments down to basic support can make it easier to point out assumptions

I agree, but they frame the right through the lens of tradition so ig. POE

Two of these questions on this section have shown me that I overlook mismatches in likelihood on parallel questions!

Likely not =/= Will not

Likely not (every time) =/= sometimes not

Lesson: Sometimes not and likely not are important to distinguish.

We don't need the concerts to be comparable, we need them to be average. The fact that they're comparable does not tell us anything about popularity.

I think B can be eliminated for descriptive inaccuracy. The stimulus never states that memorabilia is the sole indicator, but it is obviously assumed to be a sufficient indicator. Still, B is not supported at the SOLE indicator. For flaw questions, I find that eliminating based off descriptive accuracy is especially helpful.

I struggled with C because, in my mind, the stimulus wasn't implying that the comparable concert sales were popular, but that they were average (so we're a little better than average). However, we don't know what the comparable concerts were average. They could have also been other shitty concerts.

For comparative questions, it is important to understand whether we know that the two items being compared are relevantly similar. We know they're comparable, yes, but we need to know how comparable they are relative to popularity. We don't, so we can't make a judgement about popularity. Them being comparable isn't enough--are they comparable in the way that is relevant to the conclusion?

I wouldn't go as far as to say she would disagree with D. She says women's rights should be addressed uniquely, but that doesn't mean she's saying the underlying rights should be different between men and women.

That's actually why I struggled with this question. Seeing that both perspectives were trying to advance women's rights coming out of the UNIVERSAL rights movement, D was tempting. However, G's talks about how women's rights should be advanced, not what they are.

Imo B is the better answer because it is explicitly a part of each argument. While D could be inferred to be G's belief, it is not a part of her argument.

I think C would still be wrong even if it said there are no more accidents than normal the following day. Severity instead of number makes it extra wrong but even so, knowing we return to our baseline after daylight savings strengthens the idea that it's actually daylight savings is causing the accidents, but not sleep deprivation specifically. C could just as well support the alternative hypothesis of A.

By selecting B I was trying to show whether or not it actually got easier to comply. We need to show whether the RANKINGS improved

@ChristianUmholtz Coming back to this question makes me giggle but sometimes I just think to myself gotta learn the test writers language even if it can be wonky at times lol

Lol this question is irritating because can't people be cruel in similar ways? Like if guillotine had its moment for an era then yeah it would make sense that different rulers were similarly cruel.. do rulers have to come up with new inventive ways to be cruel? To me it makes more sense that the ruler would actually be horrible if they're documented doing things that track with other horrible rulers. Is that not realistic?

Originally chose B because, as a general rule, "some" being inconsistent with evidence typically isn't good evidence against an argument. Most people with cats are happy (large sample size) -> cats can increase happiness, for example. Some people with cats aren't happy doesn't necessarily weaken the argument well because outliers are to be expected. (Bad example but you get the point). In the same way, I thought some paintings being destroyed doesn't change the evidence we have. However, the difference here is that we're saying the sample itself isn't complete, not that there could be outliers

C doesn't get us any closer to whether or not they painted their diets. It's a fact that's disconnected from the conclusion entirely.

Disputing an assumption may not weaken the argument. You can't merely call out assumptions, you must call out assumptions that are harmful to the argument specifically. So what if she was actually aware (which a premise stated she wasn't)? C shows it can still be involuntary, which is why she doesn't wanna be held responsible.

I struggled with D because, in my mind, okay cool then she could be held responsible in the future but what does that have to do with what already happened? However, "should not be held responsible for it" can reasonably include future cases of humming

Disputing an assumption may not weaken the argument. You can't merely call out assumptions, you must call out assumptions that are harmful to the argument specifically

Okay I chose C at first due to the line about how the current approach "contributes little" to real-life understanding; however, indifference is lack of opinion, not uncertainty on the net benefits.

Uncertainty on net benefits = recognize good and bad, more uncertainty about which dominate. I feel like this is more characteristic of the author's opinion because they recognize the traditional approach as greatly lacking without wanting to throw it away

Clinical indifference = no opinion on the effects themselves

The author is definitely not indifferent, just not confident with how much the traditional approach is actually helping. Big difference between that and indifference on the subject matter itself

There is absolutely an opinion on the approach lol, the question is how much the approach is helping

Omg I chose C because I read "presumes" as "fails to consider".. I've done this before too. Big reminder for me on not skimming over that qualifier and inserting what I want to hear

@1766574055qq69 I thought the same thing too! I think the issue is that we can't satisfy the sufficient condition of the negated conditional statement given the premises we have. If we say that the being does not get what it wants entirely through the use of its practical intelligence, we have to presume the necessary condition we are trying to prove. We can't say whether the being gets what it wants through its practical intelligence if we don't first know if it has practical intelligence.

Now if the argument wasn't trying to prove the existence of practical intelligence and this was more of a PSAr question, that negated conditional could be useful I think? But we're simply trying to get to whether it can acquire PI, so our sufficient condition can't require us to label whether something has PI or not when that is what we're setting out to prove.

@colbyyuan566 Doesn't NEED to is key. You can have all the money and not need to learn how to make more, but you could still learn to, yes. Doesn't mean you NEED to

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but here is my thought process for A:

Emotion -> inhibition -> increase in heart rate

A would strengthen the argument because it would eliminate the possibility that emotion is what's increasing heart rate (an alternative hypothesis). However, I struggled to understand why it (emotion does not cause increase in heart rate) is NECESSARY for the argument that inhibition causes heart rate. Couldn't both emotion and inhibition both increase heart rate? That would still allow the conclusion to stand.

I think my issue is in how I frame "NA". I don't think the argument does require that inhibition is a singular sufficient condition for an increase in heart rate, but if emotion is also a sufficient condition (negation of A), then we have NO REASON to believe it was ever inhibition. There goes our support for the argument at hand, even if both emotion and inhibition could theoretically cause an increase in heart rate.

I think I need to expand my understanding of NA questions to simply mean I'm looking for something that would be absolutely devastating for the argument (premises + conclusion)--not necessarily something that is literally "required" for the conclusion. A NA answer choice should strip the argument of its support, which A does (even if both could technically work as sufficient conditions).

@HarryRaftus Yes both these things! The majority of the passage is talking about what "should" and "can" happen, causing me to miss this sentence as specific evidence in support of the author's argument. A is incomplete because it is single directional.

I struggled a lot with choosing D because I thought, "well what about factors other than being marked incorrectly." However, the stimulus tells us that being correctly addressed is enough to have most packages delivered in two days. If most mail is delivered in more time than that, it doesn't matter if other factors contribute to the later delivery because we know that, REGARDLESS of other factors, most correctly addressed mail will still be delivered within 2 days.

For me it clicked when I imagined that most mail in general was correctly addressed. Well that would make most of it being delivered in 3+ days make ZERO sense. Therefore a good amount has to be incorrect at minimum

Chose the correct answer timed, on BR I thought A was doing what D does (instead of it being that we don't know why businesses may have failed, I read it as we don't know WHETHER they did). Specific factors are irrelevant

Big lesson for me here is being more aware of when you're making inferences that seem logical but are still unsupported.

You have basically an unlimited credit card and you have to spend a ton of money financing an empire? Yeah, it sounds logical that you might spend more than you otherwise would have.

But what the passage actually tells us it that not having limitations made it harder to get money.