@GiovanniAlvarezLaw how does more people smoking equal individual higher chances of cancer? more people doesn't equal to more likeliness im confuse by what youre saying

we can only conclude that the popularity of a musical scale is NOT the result of social conditioning. But the anthropologist makes the mistaken conclusion that it can be attributed ONLY to the innate dispositions. Well clearly innate dispositions is one part of "not social conditioning" but its not the ONLY one. it could be a result of multiple factors (including social conditioning, jiust not by itself).

we can only conclude that the popularity of a musical scale is NOT the result of social conditioning. But the anthropologist makes the mistaken conclusion that it can be attributed ONLY to the innate dispositions. Well clearly innate dispositions is one part of "not social conditioning" but its not the ONLY one. it could be a result of multiple factors (including social conditioning, jiust not by itself).

@superchillasian i guess my confusion here is we shouldn't be denying premises, so why are we denying the truth of the last premise?

Stallworth claims Claim A.

Henning claims Claim B.

If both claims are true, then something would happen. But since this something did not come to pass, the conclusion is that one of them must be wrong. Basically, if claim A is true, then B cannot be cannot be true. and vice versa. but we're automatically assumimg that A must be right.

TV news claims Morgan could not have witnessed it from his kitchen (A).

newspaper claims Morgan COULD have witnessed the accident from his kitchen (B).

If A is right, then B cannot be right. Conclusion states that B must be right. But why can't A be right?

I got tripped up initially by trying to match a conditional statement to the (If both claims are true, then something else would happen), but I guess the stimulus doesn't explicity state that if Stallworth AND Henning, then proposal receives government approval, just more like both are separate paths to this final result. YIKES that was rough.

i specifically said "less the risk of default" Clayton said think of other variables in your two separate groups (here, it's borrowers with higher credit scores and borrowers with lower credit scores." SO maybe it's a different kind of risk that affects it.

Also, "tends to diminish" means there has to be the possibility that gov by ref has enhanced at least once in the past given that gov by rep just does it better. Otherwise how would you even draw that comparison?

I think this is more whole to part flaw, where a kind of contemporary novel (psych, action, romance, etc.) sucks, and therefore concludes that ALL kinds of contemporary novels suck. A is saying since gov can't regulate employment or inflation (which are parts underneath their whole economy), then that guarantees that they will suck at improving the whole economy. I think C is wrong because it only talks about the time flaw, whereas that may be present in the stimulus in relation to the romance novels being stale, but that flaw is not present for ALL the examples (e.g. the failure of the psych novel or the lack of social significance for the contemp action novel). Another thing to keep in mind is not to compare the description of the words (which could easily lead you to thinking flaw = fault), but think about what the relationship is.

I got the part about switching the order between the two right in my mind, but when I looked at the answer choices I got distracted by all the other red herring options. How to avoid!!

Another thing to look for is sample. For all the non-causal, the terms "every" or "all" or "most" appear, which indicates that there is a specific group and therefore that it relates just to them, which is why it's a correlation, whereas all the other ones are sure facts without subsets.