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.

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.

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.

WHAT

I was torn between AC A and AC C because I couldn't figure out which sentence was the MC.... I was asking myself: is the author more concerned with trying to convince us that there is a need to implement water conservation incentives in order to avoid water emergencies? Or is the MC that Springhill discourages conservation? Any advice on how to discern between the two would be greatly appreciated. #help

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

I came up with an analogy to help me understand why B is incorrect and why C is correct.

It's easier if I start with why C is correct:

Naomi and Claudia have both started training at the gym with a personal trainer. Naomi has been working with the trainer for 3 months, but has seen almost no results. It just isn't working for her. She is dissatisfied, so she so she drops out of the training program. On the other hand, Claudia started seeing results after only 2 months and has continued to see them. She's satisfied with the training program so she'll be sticking it out for longer than 6 months.

Not long after the 6 month mark, Naomi and Claudia both receive emails from their gym asking them to rate their satisfaction with the gym's personal training program. Claudia, who loves the program and is now going on month 7, responds that she is extremely satisfied with the program. Folks with similar experiences would be likely to have a similar response. However, Naomi, who didn't see the desired results and dropped out early, would be much less likely to respond positively, as would those who had had similar experiences.

So, Claudia stuck with the program because it's been working for her from the start, and she would have had a positive response to the survey even if it had been given at the 3 month mark.

Now for why B is incorrect: Say that Claudia and 40 others who have worked with the trainer for 6+ months respond to the survey, while only Naomi and 13 others who worked with the trainer for less than 6 months respond. This only tells us that those in the 6+ group are more likely to respond to a survey, so the sample size is larger. The percentage doesn't change.

I'm sure there's an obvious reason why my thought process is wrong, but I can't find it. When reading the stimulus, I took Gregory's argument to mean that the irresponsible analysts who would have normally made exaggerated claims, would now be deterred from doing so because they have these new board standards to adhere to. I didn't think that he meant that these analysts would be prevented from obtaining a license, but that they wouldn't be able to both exaggerate, and keep their licenses. That the board would keep them in check. This is why I'm struggling with AC D. #help

“Indulging your inner douche” haaaaa

.

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

Ok, I guess I can see how the argument "seeks" to establish validity, but I don't think the argument is actually valid. Maybe I'm missing something here, but could she just remember where her nest (do bats have nests?) is? Or she smells it? Based on the premises, I don't see how we can form a valid conclusion that bat mothers must recognize their pups' calls. Maybe communication isn't needed for her to find her way back to her pup. I think with this one the wording of the question stem is extra important. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I had the explanation video on mute and was just reading the captions for this one, so I could have easily missed something.