I chose A because it completes the argument by connecting awareness to citations. However, it took me a minute to process option C.

For those who are confused by option C: C could justify the argument if "should" were replaced with "would." Think about it. "Should" would be prescriptive and "would" would be descriptive in this situation.

Hope this helps.

I chose A because it demonstrates the whole-to-part flaw in the same way as the stimulus. However, I think the explanation in this video overlooks another aspect of answer choice B that makes it descriptively irrelevant. B's whole refers to a specific region, whereas the part is silent on the region. That is another reason why I eliminated B.

I can see how C would be wrong still, but why is A the better option?

Can someone help me understand why A for question 21 is correct?

There is no support to believe that lumpers would disagree with the idea that there are more species than are currently recognized. They may very well think that thousands of undiscovered species exist in the wild that are not yet recognized.

I chose C because if there are species that are extinct, the surviving members could be categorized in the same species based their genetic traits, not on whether they could or could not interbreed.

What am I missing?

For those who are confused why C is wrong, I think you have to consider what it is actually saying. It is saying that it cannot determine/ensure that country F citizens have majority ownership of the company. Even if they cannot determine/ensure this information, it can still sell it with a contract that allows country F citizens to gain majority ownership. That is why it is wrong.

I chose E because I was thinking that, if new plant growth occurred, then there would be more plants that could get infected by diseases carried by mosquitos.

But C does make sense because mosquito larvae predators could kill more larvae than drought would. Thus, if there were less predators as a result of a drought, more larvae would thrive, since drought would be less of a threat than predators.

.

My problem with C is that you would think that, if there is documentation of cruelty similar to other tyrants, it would weaken the challenges made by modern historians by parallel reasoning. Furthermore, his enemies can fabricate Caligula's cruelty without "plagiarizing". If the AC stated that they may have plagiarized, it would support, but without it, I see C weaking the challenge.

Can someone help me understand?

you have a good point

Apparently, the word "defer" means to postpone, but the phrase "defer to" means to agree to follow. I got this one right on my first attempt but got it wrong in BR because I didn't know the definition of the latter.

Stay sharp everyone lol.

So, twins are really the same person...

I think I understand. The conclusion of the argument is that chromosome 6 does not cause schizophrenia? Is this correct?

I was debating between A and C.

I chose C because the argument only uses sample populations of one type of causal correlation (chromosome 6 causing schizophrenia), and the argument did not consider populations in, which schizophrenia could have caused damage to chromosome 6.

A makes sense, but I also do not understand how C was wrong. If someone could explain what I am missing, it would be greatly appreciated.

I would not say the E strengthens the arguments. The argument in the stim says that nearsightedness disappears with age. E's study does not show that it is not disappearing, nor does it show that it is disappearing. Therefore, I would say it's merely consistent.

D makes the most sense. It is not attacking the truth of the premises, rather it is addressing the significance of the truth of those premises, thus rendering them unreliable and weakening the argument.

Stimulus -> Horny

Got it.

Either students or faculty will think the policy is unpopular.

So, if faculty thinks it's NOT unpopular, then students must be the ones who think its unpopular.

If students think it's unpopular, they should adopt a new policy.

I think you are mistranslating the contrapositive

Original Rule: If YES contempt or YES b(harm) -> NO joke

Contrapositive: If YES joke -> NO contempt or NO b(harm)

Choice B: If NO contempt or NO b(harm) -> YES joke

B is not the contrapositive of the rule

I don't see how E is an overly inclusive view because it says that the measure reduces traffic accidents, and a study that indicates reduction does not adhere to that rule.

I did not select E because it says that “any measure that reduces”, and the stimulus never said that the measure would reduce traffic accidents. It simply states that there was a study that points to reducing traffic accidents. It does not actually mean that it DOES reduce traffic accidents.

Can someone help me understand? #help (Added by admin)

I got it right, but it took me too long to figure out. Any feedback on improving speed on this type of question?

it says they "often" nest in fruit trees, not "only". Even if it said "only", there would be other fruit trees, other than orchard trees that they could nest in, which does not strengthen the argument.

I think that E provides an explanation to the discrepancy because it helps explain that beta-carotene does not have an effect on health.

Rather, it is smoking that effects health, and this explains the discrepancy on why beta-carotene had no effect on health in study 2 as well.

LMK if there is something wrong with this this process.

I didn't pick B because we don't know how much AC could cause a blackout. Just because "most" AC is used for businesses, it doesn't mean that that amount could cause a blackout.

Say 20% of power from AC needs to be reduced to prevent a blackout, and businesses make up for 60% (most) of the AC power. Having residence stop their usage would result in 40% less power usage, which is enough to prevent a blackout. "Most" is too ambiguous.

Can someone explain, if I am missing something here?

#help Added by Admin

When you say "Workplace -> Ban Smoking"

"Ban Smoking" = Necessary Condition

Shouldn't "Ban Smoking" be the big circle, and workplace sit inside that circle?

I thought necessary condition is supposed to be the big circle containing the sufficient condition.

#help (Added by Admin)

I really thought kill all the pandas was correct