So glad that I’m not the only one doing this

I initially chose C too, but see how E is more relevant, since the paragraph is leading up to a description of the court cases.

Right?! Can we please acknowledge this.

Am I the only one who’s been thinking that people mistakenly believe that glass has a fixed crystal structure this whole time?

.

“Indulging your inner douche” haaaaa

No, sometimes the correct AC will be referring to the sub-conclusion. The only reason for ignoring the SC’s flaw (part-to-whole) in this question is that none of the ACs described the part-to-whole flaw. If an AC had said something like presumes that an entity is the best on the basis of each of its components being the best, we would have a problem, because we would have two right answers.

The flaw is that the journalist is mistakenly attributing the frequency of which small observational studies are published in newspapers to their likelihood of containing dramatic stories, when they are actually featured in newspapers more often than large randomized trials because there are just more of them to report on. Imagine a newspaper that’s printed once a week- if there’s only one compelling large scientific trial to report on a month, but dozens of small observational studies, the newspaper will have to report on small observational studies, because not enough large trials exist.

Came to the comments to see if I was the only one who thought this

Right??? Why are we starting to reverse arrows? I hate it

#feedback

AGREE! Let’s Review was helpful. #feedback

I did the same thing! I put “shouldn’t sacrifice health” as the prescriptive conclusion. I would love an answer to this, because I’m still not understanding. #help

The conclusion in the stimulus is that Franklin should receive the award, and that Penn should not. B doesn’t explain why Penn shouldn’t receive the award- It says that he has an exemplary record (he’s eligible), and that he saved a life (even though he didn’t go beyond what would be reasonably expected during this particular life-saving incident, we don’t know that he didn’t go beyond in other situations this year). Based on these facts, Penn could still be eligible.

A is airtight- Penn doesn’t have an exemplary record, so he’s not even in the running.

I think it’s because A says any company. Checkers is a company, so it resides within that set. C says at least one company, which refers to at least one specific company, but we don’t know which one(s). Any makes AC broad, so it applies to all companies.

The written explanation for AC E says "high-speed railroads" instead of "high-speed roadways" just fyi #feedback

I really appreciate the longer, more detailed video explanations in V2, but I also miss the concise “Let’s Review” portion that was at the end of the earlier V2 written lessons. #feedback

“THE only” is group 1

My take- most of the LR questions rely on our understanding of the argument (premise + conclusion). If we mistake context for part of the argument, we’ll get the answer wrong. I think the different types of context are given labels and differentiated in these lessons so they’ll be easier for us to identify as not part of the argument itself.

Agree. I don’t know if I’m getting them right because I understand them, or if it’s just because I’ve learned the pattern. #feedback

A. Incorrect- According to the stimulus, 10% of extreme insomniacs aren’t big coffee drinkers, not the other way around.

B. Incorrect- True, but who cares, we’re talking about coffee

C. Correct- SC and NC confusion: It (the argument that Tom probably has insomnia because he drinks a lot of coffee) relies on evidence (90% of insomniacs drink lots of coffee) that doesn’t indicate the frequency of insomniacs among people who drink large amounts of coffee (Tom). If the research evidence were to indicate that most people who drink a lot of coffee are insomniacs, we would be able to conclude that it’s likely that Tom is an insomniac, since he drinks a lot of coffee.

D. Incorrect- Descriptively accurate: the argument draws an inference about one person (Tom) from evidence that describes only the characteristics of (drinks lots of coffee) of a class of people (insomniacs).

It’s fine to do this. To infer that something is likely because one is part of a group that shares the same characteristics isn’t flawed. To say that he’s definitely an insomniac would be flawed, but to say that it’s likely that he is would be fine (if the evidence was about the prevalence of insomnia among people who consume large amounts of coffee and not the other way around).

E. Incorrect- Always? No. The argument is pointing out a correlation, it’s not saying that coffee causes insomnia.

A. Incorrect- the stimulus doesn’t specifically state that the conclusion is referring to the general population. “More people” could just as easily be in reference to those to completed the survey.

B. Correct- Confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition. The conclusion that more people think that elected officials should resign if indicted than if convicted doesn’t hold, because the statement about the 50% has indictment as the sufficient condition, and the statement about the 35% has conviction as the necessary condition. The stimulus doesn’t say that 50% believe that elected officials should resign only if indicted, which, compared to conviction, is much less severe. If someone believes that an elected official should resign if he’s indicted, this person almost certainly believes that he should also resign if convicted (and even if we don’t assume this, there is still a possibility that this is the case, because indictment is the sufficient condition). Therefore, it’s highly likely that more people would believe that an elected official should resign if convicted, than if indicted.

C. Incorrect- I’m not seeing anything ambiguous.

D. Incorrect- Why can’t a survey ask about two different things?

E. Incorrect- The premises can all be true.

Got me!

My thinking was that AC C is wrong because it doesn't really matter if the newspapers are biased. If he was trying to make the argument that we should believe that there IS a lot of violent crime because newspapers say so, it would matter. But he's kind of telling us not to put too much stock into what the newspapers are printing

I think AC C is incorrect because it ignores the major premise, which states that professional performance evaluations are conducted using realistic situations. IRL, professionals actually have access to these materials. In school, you usually aren't tested in realistic situations, because you're in a classroom taking a test. I think this is where the analogy really goes wrong.

Stimulus- "Toddlers are not being malicious when they bite people." We don't have to assume this, it's stated in the stimulus as a fact.

A) Correct- A child wants a toy and feels that someone is preventing him from having it (the problem). The child bites this person in an attempt to get the toy (tries to solve the problem). We know that the child doesn't use malice, because the stimulus tells us that the biting isn't malicious. This isn't an assumption, as it's already stated in the stimulus. This AC is a nearly perfect generalization of what's described in the stimulus.

B) Incorrect- Getting attention is too specific, and how do we know that this behavior only applies to adults? With this AC we have to assume that the stimulus is only referring to adults, and that this reasoning doesn't apply to other children.

C) Incorrect- We don't know this, and again, we're assuming that this is only about children biting adults.

D) Incorrect- We have no idea if this biting is actually effective or ineffective

E) Incorrect- Again, we don't know what the actual outcome is, we only know the intended objective.