Discrepancy: If Cobalt was not used in Europe before 1804 then how could one argue that it was painted prior to 1804? (my pre-phrase/hunt for the answer would be along the lines of 'maybe it wasn't painted in europe? maybe there's new evidence that cobalt WAS used to paint with prior to 1804? Maybe someone painted over it after 1804' etc)

A) If the painting could've been painted over at a later date, the original painting could've been done prior to 1804 (with Cobalt added to it in 1910, for argument's sake). This aligns with the 1955 analysis AND the 2009 analysis.

B) Doesn't matter the amount, cobalt was still found in both analyses. This doesn't tell us anything new or important.

C) Same problem as B

D) Who cares? What if some of them were on crack?

E) Similar problem as B and C - doesn't speak to the discrepancy.

A) Irrelevant

B) Correct - speaks to the discrepancy

C) Irrelevant

D) Doesn't tell us anything

E) Who cares about which sector? What if 5 people worked in these specific sectors apiece?

Discrepancy: Home ownership and unemployment are inversely correlated.

A) If owning a home makes it more difficult to find a job, that would explain the discrepancy. It basically ascribes a cause for the correlation.

B) If anything, this would suggest the opposite is true (that home ownership and jobs are directly correlated).

C) This doesn't explain anything, it just further confounds the discrepancy by hinting at a larger pattern.

D) Anti supported, kind of like B

E) Irrelevant - this doesn't speak to the relationship between employment status and home-ownership. Maybe if it said 'trust fund babies who never need to work are more likely to buy homes' but someone could feel economically secure in a different way.

@AndrewPhillips Also are we able to assume that the 'leaders' of the herd are always the ones that are straying? Am I being insane??

Are we able to make the assumption that ranchers are just purchasing one device as opposed to the whole herd? This question feels shady...

Stim: off the bat this feels like a math flaw... Bear with me: say we have 100 grad students of which 7 want to unionize. Of the 7, 4 think either it will not represent their needs and/or would not effectively pursue them. That's 4/100... hardly a majority...

A) What long standing practice? Huh?

B) I mean, sure... they don't broach the subject of how cumbersome it is to attend union meetings or how much dues will cost... but that's not the flaw

C) Descriptively true -- 93 out of the 100 students who have no idea about the plans to unionize might actually really fuck with the idea and that's the crux of the flaw. You cannot assume that everyone else will think it's a waste of time, however -- okay i'm coming back after locking in E... this one is wrong because because it is not concerned with the awareness, the claim is about 'disapproval'

D) Sure, but not the flaw. The argument isn't concerned with reasons TO unionize. It claims that they shouldn't on the grounds that the majority disapprove of it (which is the erroneous claim).

E) Ugh... this one actually might be correct i hate this i hate this i hate this!! Okay, my thought is that the argument mistakenly claims that they should not unionize because the majority disapproves but that's not the case... they cannot disapprove if they don't know about it (lack of approval). The blurring of this distinction is the flaw.

@GoingRogue22 I couldn't agree more... I think I would've identified it as the correct answer had it been worded more clearly

I'm consistently spending 2-3 more minutes on the reading and think the culprit is that I'll jot notes throughout the paragraph. Curious if anyone else starts writing their low res summary during the paragraph instead of after? It feels natural to me but think it's killing my timing.

I got this one right but was 38 seconds over -- when you guys are reading the stim are you diagramming as you do it? Or only if you don't fully understand it?

I worry that on these if I don't diagram as I read I run the risk of not understanding it at first blush and then expending even more time trying to diagram on my second read... Thoughts?

5/5 lfg!

The moment I realized this excerpt was the conclusion I just hunted for it in the AC and got it right but I feel like that's not sustainable on the actual exam (I read the first two words on each AC and immediately discarded those that didn't say 'conclusion'). Does anyone else relate? I feel like this unit in particular relies more on pattern recognition which lends itself toward reflexively seeking an answer than combing through and doing PoE.

@Kaileavesley Same... but at least i'm like 2 mins over each one too lmao

@Kevin_Lin yes -- at my laptop lol

Are these all interchangeable? Do we need to understand how to do all three of them? Seems like 1 and 3 are most intuitive to me...

I'm getting really stuck with group 4 negate, necessary conditionals. For question four how do we get Invited > RSVP? I think I'm getting boggled down by the double-negatives...

"NO (indicator) one is invited (idea 1) who did not RSVP (idea 2)."

So then if the rule is to pick either, negate it, and make it necessary, then wouldn't you get this breakdown?

One is invited > /RSVP

Contrapositive: RSVP > /one is invited

I realize logically this is flawed -- if one RSVPs, you could make a strong inferrence that they were invited... Am I making sense? Where am I getting crossed up?

Anyone else feel like Damian Lillard getting the last two right?

(I was a mess questions 1-3 lol)

Disney argument leaves no room for error.

Tiger argument's claim, while accurate, relies on a specific instance within a larger generalization. Tigers are usually very aggressive though not always.

Trash bin relies entirely on suspicion without any tangible causal relationship. Who isn't to say that the bin was knocked over before Mr Fat Cat arrived on the scene? Is there no other time when Mr Fat Cat licks his paws?

Does this make sense?? How am I doing? Lol

Hi everyone! I'm Andrew -- likely taking in June and based in LA if anyone is looking for accountability partners/study groups? Did my undergrad at Indiana and work in entertainment