Most Strongly Support

Stimulus (the facts of it)

Author recommends company reconsider decision to completely abandon their allegedly difficult-to-use computer software and replace it companywide with a new software package advertised as more flexible and easier to use. Why? Several other companies in the author's region officially replaced their software with the new package, and while their employees can all use the new software, unofficially many employees continue to use their former software as much as possible.

Supported Conclusions

1. Many of the author's current employees would likely continue to use the old software if the new software package is implemented.

2. The advantages of the new software package are unlikely to compel every employee to use it over the now-current software.

B.) Wrong. We actually don't know if the familiarity aspect of the current software is the "more important" consideration when selecting it over the new software. Also, we know that the new software is "advertised" as more flexible, but we don't know if it is actually more flexible.

D.) Nope, unsupported. There is actually no indication that anyone will be unable to use the new software. Many employees will likely prefer to use the current software, but that doesn't imply they actually lack the ability to use the new software.

E.) Yup yup yup. This is strongly supported. The author was using the example of the employees in other companies as something that would happen to their current company if the new software is introduced. The author uses this example to suggest that a similar phenomenon will occur at their own company.

Principle - Apply

The principle: Choose something that is a part of your personal preference, even if it is detrimental to the task.

Here -- computer experts are favoring one thing to the company even though it is more expensive, less profitable, and not reliable.

C.) Bingo! This is the correct answer and mirrors the principle. The librarians are choosing one thing when it actually is at the cost of the community.

A.) Wrong. There is nothing "negative" that is happening. The senior executives are simply choosing one who shares their professional interests over those who have the most education, but how does this negatively affect the company? There is nothing detrimental about the decision, so this is incorrect.

Necessary Assumption

Stimulus

Scientists long believed that omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil tend to lower blood cholesterol. Scientists strongly suspect that a diet that has a modest amount of fish would provide substantial health benefits. Now the scientists' views have strong support from a recent study: middle-aged people who eat fish twice a week are nearly 30% less likely to develop heart disease than those who do not eat fish.

Lower blood cholesterol = lower heart disease

The author is making a correlation with causation.

Takes a study showing a correlation between eating fish and health, and suggests that eating fish is good for health.

A.) Nope, this aint necessary to the argument.

B.) Nope, once negated, this would make the argument very strong.

C.) Nope, this would actually support the argument.

D.) Yuuuppp."Those who ate fish twice a week were significantly more likely than those who did not engage regularly in activities known to augment cardiorespiratory health." This answer choice negated is basically saying, "ayo those people that ate fish in the study were actually more likely to engage in activities that strengthen heart health than regular people that don't eat fish as often." This would actually destroy the author's main argument by adding third thing, rather than the fish, that helps lower heart disease. This answer choice is providing an alternative cause to the lowering of heart disease, and showing that it actually could not be the eating modest amounts of fish. Alternative explanation.

E.) No, this goes in the wrong direction. Once negated ("fish eaters were more likely to be sedentary"), it would actually help support the argument by showing that fish can indeed counteract the effects of being sedentary.

Diagram this shit out:

1.) "Only people who are willing to compromise should undergo mediation to resolve their conflicts."

Mediation --> Willing to Compromise

2.) "Actual litigation should be pursued only when one is sure that one's position is correct."

Position Correct --> Litigation

3.) "People whose conflicts are based on ideology are unwilling to compromise."

Ideology --> /Willing to Compromise

Can only combine and make an inference with #1 and #3:

Mediation --> Willing to Compromise

Ideology --> /Willing to Compromise

/Willing to Compromise --> /Mediation

Inference: Ideology --> /Willing to Compromise --> /Mediation

Ideology --> /Mediation & Mediation --> /Ideology

(If your conflicts are based on ideology, then you should NOT undergo mediation to resolve their conflicts)

This is exactly what E says.

Strengthen

Stimulus

People who eat a lot of saturated fat can lower their risk of heart disease by increasing their intake of unsaturated fat. Why? People who have diets high in saturated fat generally have an increased risk of heart disease. If they replace saturated fat with unsaturated fat decrease their risk of heart disease.

Author goes from replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat to increasing intake of unsaturated fat. Replacing one's intake of a thing is not the same as increasing that intake of said thing. The author is definitely assuming that by increasing one's intake of unsaturated fat in one's diet also means that they'll eat less saturated fat, which reduces their risk of heart disease.

A.) Yup yup yup. This is exactly what the author is assuming. If the people who add unsaturated fat to their diets will also eat less saturated fat, then this would help justify the conclusion that people can reduce their risk of heart disease by adding unsaturated fat.

B.) Nope. This goes in the wrong direction. The author's conclusion is only about reducing the risk of heart disease. How does other health benefits help justify that conclusion? It's just a fun lil' ol' fact.

C.) No. Okay, and? What does this tell us about increasing unsaturated fat?

D.) No. Life expectancy? Noooo we're talking abotu heart disease risk broskis.

E.) No. We don't care about how difficult the reduction is. We need help to show that increasing unsaturated fat lowers saturated fat and thus lowers heart disease risk.

PAI - Disagree

Stimulus

Otis — It’s wrong for a dentist to schedule an after-hours appointment to suit a family friend, but refuse to do the same for anyone else. Why? Aristotle’s principle of justice states we should treat relevantly similar cases similarly.

Tyra — I agree with Aristotle’s principle of justice, but it’s human nature to want to do special favors for friends. Not unjust for dentists to do special favors for friends as that are what friends are for.

Disagreement: Whether it is a similar case for dentists scheduling friends after-hours versus randos blah blah blah.

Remember, Tyra does not disagree with Otis's premises. Tyra simply arrives at a different conclusion.

A.) No, both Otis and Tyra agree with Aristotle's principle of justice. They also do not say anything about how "applicable" the principle is. Tyra also doesn't disagree with the principle. If anything, they agree with it, and does apply it to the dentist scenario.

B.) Bingo. This is exactly what both parties disagree about. Otis believes that situations involving friends and situations involving others should be considered similar cases. In contrast, Tyra is saying, "ayo actually, they're not similar cases and shouldn't be treated similarly, aint nothing wrong with that."

C.) No. Otis doesn't say anything about human nature. Tyra is the only one that discusses human nature.

D.) No. Neither Otis nor Tyra have an opinion about this. Otis just wants dentists to be consistent with their scheduling - schedule friends and others the same. Either friends and randos get after-hour appointments, or none of them do. Tyra, on the other hand, says that scheduling friends after hours ain't unjust. Tyra doesn't say anything about what dentists should do.

E.) No, no one discusses this. Get rid of it right away.

Weaken

Stimulus

Cheaper brands of oil are the best buys. Why? Study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of different brands of motor oil by using them in taxicabs over a 6,000-mile test period. All the oils did equally well in retarding wear on pistons and cylinders, which are the relevant parts of the engine.

Pretty strong ass conclusion. I just don’t think that the author did a very good job at explaining why cheaper brands of oil are the best buys. The author is assuming that all the different motor oil brands tested did equally well in retarding the engine. The author ain’t specific enough for me broski.

A.) Nah, if anything this would support the author’s argument.

B.) Nah bro, we need an answer choice that differentiates between cheaper oils and other oils. We don’t know what those “other tests” are. Don’t stretch it too much. Just cause they got other tests that also gauge the quality, doesn’t mean that those tests are better than the current test done. Who knows, maybe they’re shitty and cheaper oil is da best.

C.) No, this is too much. By saying that “all motor oils deteriorate over time” is not helping anything. But, it also won’t weaken the argument. It does nothing, get it out.

D.) No, this answer choice is just way too broad. What is this “certain brand of oil?” Was it the expensive oil? The cheaper brand? We don’t know which oil brand it was to know if it weakens the argument.

E.) Yup yup yup. If the ability to retard engine wear is not the only property of motor oil that is important to running dat engine, then shit man, maybe cheaper brands suck. This would put the study in question. Bingo.

Principle

Stimulus

We should impose a tariff on imported fruit to make it cost consumers more than domestic fruit. Why? Foreign growers who can grow cheaper, better fruit will put domestic fruit growers out of business. This will cause farmland to be converted into industrial use and no more fun, unique way of life.

A.) No, if tariffs are not imposed, then fruit will be cheaper. It is technically in the country’s own economic interest to not impose tariffs. However, the author is actually in favor of tariffs. So, no, the author is not putting its own economic interests over that of other countries.

B.) No, this is way too broad. “Producers” as in the producers of other countries? If that is the case, and their interests should always take precedence over those of consumers, then shit no tariffs!!

C.) This is the correct answer, and through POE, the best one. The “social concerns” here are the country losing their farmland and their unique way of life. The “economic efficiency” is how no tariffs could help consumers purchase cheaper, and better fruit which would help the economy. But, the tariffs would affect the “social concerns” and therefore, the author is putting social concerns over economic efficiency.

D.) Nope nope nope. Domestic growers and consumers are both citizens. Wouldn’t it be in the best interests of the domestic consumers to consume imported (foreign) fruits because they’re cheaper and better — with no tariffs? But the author is in favor of tariffs. Therefore, the author is not putting the interests of its citizens above those of other country citizens.

E.) Nahh the author actually doesn’t want government intervention. Government intervention in the form of tariffs are shit.

Principle — Apply

Stimulus

Although everyone should have the right to complete freedom of thought and expression, it is still wrong to profit off of people’s depravity.

We need an answer choice that has the right application of this principle. Perhaps the right answer will have a situation where someone can express themselves, but it is still wrong to try and make cash off of people’s depraved popular tastes.

A.) No, this answer choice states that depraved works should not be allowed at all. Our principle in the stimulus actually says the opposite, that depraved works are still allowed, but we shouldn’t profit off them.

B.) Okay, cool, and? The answer choice states that people are free to make depraved movies, but they can also not make them. Our stimulus/principle was that it people’s depravity is allowed, but it is not morally acceptable to profit off that depravity.

C.) Bingoooo. Yup. This answer choices is saying that it should be allowed to publish whatever books you desire, but it is morally acceptable to publish books that cater to people’s depravity. Absolutely. Our stimulus principle was focused on one thing being allowed, but not morally acceptable.

D.) No. This answer choice actually advocates for legal restrictions on depraved recordings, and runs counter to our stimulus principle. Our principle advocated for complete freedom of expression with absolutely no restrictions.

E.) No. This is telling us when we have to accept depravity. It does not follow our original principle which tells us it is okay to think that depravity is wrong as long as it is allowed.

Flaw

Stimulus

Passengers are safer on a major airline than on one of the newer low-fare airlines. Why? Even though most low-fare airlines have had few, if any, accidents, very few low-fare airlines have been in existence long enough for their safety records to be reliably established. Major airlines usually have long-standing records reliably indicating their degree of safety.

Da Flaw

The author makes a comparative conclusion about major airlines being safer than low-fare airlines. However, the author doesn’t establish the safety of either kind of airline, so they cannot compare the two accurately.

The author cannot say that one airline is safer than the other when the author never established what safety is.

A.) No, this would actually help the conclusion. Major airlines have more flights flown, and if they have the same average of accidents than low-fare airlines (that haven't existed as long as major airlines), then shit man. Maybe major airlines are safer than low-fare airlines.

B.) No, the author did not draw this conclusion. The author concluded that major airline's safety records records are reliable. But what we don't know is what those safety records say.

C.) Binggoooo. The author failed to consider that major airlines could have reliable safety records, but could still be unsafe.

D.) Nope, nope, nope. I thought this answer choice was way too strong. The author never said anything that the major airlines have the most reliable safety records. The author made a comparative conclusion, and this answer choice does not describe the comparative conclusion between major airlines and low-fare airlines.

E.) Nope. The author was focused on the reliable safety records of the airlines.

Resolve/Paradox

Stimulus

Survey taken 10 years ago about residents living in area L showed that even though their living conditions were slightly below their country’s average, most of the residents in area L reported general satisfaction with their living conditions. However, 10 years later (this year), the same survey found that most residents of area L reported general dissatisfaction with their living conditions, even though their living conditions were now about the same as the national average.

The Discrepancy

Why are residents of area L now reporting general dissatisfaction when their living conditions now match the average of their country?

The correct answer needs to explain why residents of area L were more satisfied with their living conditions before when they were below the national average than they are now.

A.) This is cool and all, but it does not explain why the residents grew less satisfied with their living conditions.

B.) Bingo. If the national average is grew substantially worse than it was 10 years ago, that means the living conditions also declined substantially. So, the living conditions that were deemed “average” 10 years ago, are not the same as they are today and are in fact much worse. So, obviously the residents of area L are pissed about their current living conditions.

C.) Not sure how this would help explain the discrepancy. The stimulus never stated what was deemed as “optimal,” or made any comparisons between the country and others.

D.) Don’t overthink it. If residents must perceive their situation as somehow needing improvement to have living conditions improve, then why didn’t the residents find the need for improvement 10 years ago? The residents were still under the national average for living conditions, but we know that they were generally satisfied. This doesn’t explain why the residents became less satisfied, whether or not they made improvements.

E.) Almost got me because if the residents weren’t aware of their living conditions, then lowkey could see how now they are dissatisfied with their living conditions.

BUT the answer choice never said anything about the residents knowing now that they are with the national average. This just says that 10 years ago, they didn’t know they were living like booty. But do they know now they are with the average? And why are they dissatisfied NOW rather than 10 years ago? This answer choice just brings in a lot more questions and doesn’t help.

Rule to self: Find the discrepancy, say it in your own words, and stick to it while reading through the answer choices. Don’t assume too much, but find an answer choice that helps explain why and doesn’t add to the discrepancy.

Must Be True

The Facts

1. Most advances in genetic research lead to ethical dilemmas.

2. Most genetic research is exclusively funded by the government.

3. Genetic research not funded by the government is exclusively funded by corporations.

4. All genetic research is funded by either corporations or by the government, because genetic research requires funding from one of these sources.

Inferences

• Fewer than 50% of genetic research projects are funded by corporations.

  • “Most GR is exclusively funded by the government.” Most = 50% to 100%. It must be true that corporations fund fewer than 50% of GR.

• All advances in genetic research are funded by either the government or by corporations.

  • We know that most advances in GR lead to ethical dilemmas. We also know that GR is funded by either gov or corps. So, it must be true that these advances in GR are funded by gov or corps.

• All ethical dilemmas that come from genetic research come from work that was funded by either the government or corporations.

A.) Nope, this could be false. We just don’t know how much each projects leads to advances.

B.) Could be false. We have no idea how common these advances in GR are or how frequently they occur.

C.) I was initially tempted by this. Here’s my explanation on why this is wrong:

Some = 1% to 100%. We just need at least one, maybe all.

Most = 51% to 100%. This has to be the majority.

We know that most (at least 51%) genetic research is exclusively funded by the government. We also know that whatever is left, corporations fund them. We also know our inference that corporations must fund fewer than 50% of genetic research, in order to make sense for the government majority. So, given that we make the inference to advances in genetic research, it actually could be false that some advances in GR are funded by corporations.

Let’s say 60% of GR is funded by government which means most advances in GR is gov funded. There is no way in hell we can same some advances are funded by corps. The “some” they’re referring to could not only be 40%, but shit, maybe their some means 100% of those advances are from corporations. Hell nahhh that ain’t it.

It could be true to say that all advances in GR are government funded. Without specific numbers, we can’t really say this answer choice must be true. It actually could be false.

D.) Bingggoooo. This must be true. All GR is funded by corporations or government, so we can make the inference that any advances in GR must come from the government or corporations funds. Hence, it must be true that ethical dilemmas coming from advances in GR must come from either government or corporate funding. I like it.

E.) No, this could be false. There could be a small group within the government funding research that don’t give rise to ethical dilemmas. Who knowsssss.

Flaw

Stimulus

There is no causal connection between damage to human chromosome number six (HC6) and adult schizophrenia. Why? Studies show there is a correlation between damage to HC6 and adult schizo. However, we know that there are people without damage to HC6 who develop adult schizo and that some people with damage to HC6 do not develop adult schizo.

The Flaw

The author identifies a correlation between damage to HC6 and adult schizo, but concludes that there is actually no causal connection between the two because there are people who develop schizo, but do not have damage to HC6, and there are people who don’t develop schizo, but have damage to HC6.

But this doesn’t actually prove that isn’t at all a causal connection between damage to HC6 and schizo. There may be some exceptions to the correlation made, but it doesn’t mean there is no causal connection between damage to HC6 and schizo at all.

A.) Yuppp. This is exactly what the author overlooked. The author overlooks the possibility that perhaps not all kinds of damage to HC6 cause schizo. If there are some types of damage that do lead to schizo, then there could still be a chance that there’s a causal connection between the two, even if they are not always linked.

The answer choice here is saying, hey, actually there could be a causal connection between the two that you overlooked. There are some types, but not all types, of damage to HC6 that lead to schizo. So, your claim that there isn’t a causal connection between the two doesn’t work cause there is still a possibility that damage to HC6 causes schizo.

B.) Nope, the argument already established that schizo is not caused by damage to HC6 because the two are not perfectly correlated.

C.) Nahhh, I don’t see how there is a reason to believe that the study used was based on an unrepresentative sample.

D.) Noppeeee. The author is already assuming that there is actually no causal connection between HC6 and schizo at all.

E.) Almost had me lol. The other answer choices were lowkey booty during timed conditions, but this answer choices didn’t make sense to me because the author explicitly concluded that there is no causal connection at all.

I like the wording of the explanation under this answer choice: The author assumes, without providing warrant, that an imperfect correlation implies a lack of causation.

Flaw

Stimulus

Studies indicate that using N5 is of no use to people who need to reduce their fat intake and turn to fat substitutes. Why? N5 has zero calories. People who used N5 in their food reported feeling hungrier afterwards than when eating foods made with real fat. As a result, these people ate more, which made up for the calories they initially saved by using N5.

The Flaw

This author made a wildly strong conclusion here. The author concluded that N5 ain't useful for people who need to reduce their fat and calorie intake because N5 does not help lower calorie intake.

However, just because the peeps ate more calories does not mean that they ate more fat. Perhaps N5 actually helps reduce overall fat intake, even if it does not lower calories. N5 could still be useful to people who are looking to reduce their fat and calorie intake.

A.) No, this is just irrelevant.

B.) Again, no. This is out of da ballpark here.

C.) This is also irrelevant. The author is really only concerned about people who actually pay attention to their fat and calorie intake.

D.) This actually does not impact the conclusion that N5 isn't useful for people who need to reduce their fat and calories. Whether people are aware that N5 is calorie-free doesn't change the fact that almost all the people that ate it did not reduce their calorie count in the long run.

E.) Bingooooo. We know that the author concluded that N5 isn't useful for people who need to reduce their calorie and fat intake because N5 ain't actually help those people reduce their calories. Butttt this answer choice sheds some light that hey, those peeps that ate N5 actually decreased their fat intake, so N5 is ACTUALLY useful my dude.

Weaken

Stimulus

Even though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect of herbs that were proven to be safe to consume, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them. Why? The patients won’t be harmed, and might be helped by using these herbs.

Here, the author assumes that herbs that are not harmful and that may be beneficial, is sufficient to allow them to be prescribed. This assumes that there won’t be any indirect harm resulting from prescribing these medicines.

Maybe the herbs could interact badly with other drugs that the patient is taking?

A.) Correct answer. This would actually weaken the doctor’s argument. The herbs may not harm the patient in many cases, but they take the place of other remedies that were proven to be effective. This weakens the part of the doctor’s argument that explicitly states that “patients won’t be harmed” by the prescription of these medicines herbal remedies.

Remember to self: we are not necessarily weakening the conclusion that the author is making, but specifically looking to weaken the support that leads to the conclusion.

If the doctor is concluding that herbs should always be allowed to be prescribed because they won’t harm the patient, and the herbs might actually help the patient in the end, then by this answer choice saying practitioners and patients ignore more effective medicines in favor of herbal remedies, then it would actually severely weaken the main support the author makes. The doctor doesn’t say that the herbs should be the ONLY thing prescribed, but that they should always be able to prescribe them. However, there’s little firm evidence about the medicinal effects of the herbs, so, by saying practitioners and patients neglect more effective medicines for these herbs actually hurts the argument.

B.) No. This was already stated by the argument. We already know that there isn’t a lot of evidence for the effectiveness of these herbs.

C.) No, are they even talking about the herbs discussed in the stimulus in this answer choice? Even if this is talking about herbal medicines, I don’t think this attacks the argument about allowing the prescription of these medicines.

D.) Brother noooo. Irrelevant.

E.) I don’t see how this would weaken the argument. We are talking about the effects of the herbal medicines, not anything about the biochemical properties.

Necessary Assumption

Stimulus

Conclusion: Restrictions on water use will be necessary to meet the freshwater needs of humankind in the not-too-distant future. Why? The present freshwater supply may be adequate for today’s patterns of water use, but the human population will increase substantially over the next decade, which would increase the need for freshwater.

Need —> Necessary

The argument moves from a claim that the larger population in the future will need more water than the population today to the conclusion that restrictions on water usage will be necessary. This does not explain why restrictions will be the only way to meet those increased needs. The necessary assumption that there won’t be other ways of meeting the increasing needs.

A.) No. The argument is that restrictions are necessary to meet water needs. It does not require any assumptions about how well people will adapt to those restrictions.

B.) No, the argument does not need to look at current freshwater trends. It concludes that increased population needs will require restrictions, and this can be true if freshwater supply has been diminishing.

C.) Ding ding ding. Yup, this fills the gap and rules out the possibility of an alternate way of meeting the increased needs.

D.) Nope. The argument doesn’t presume not need to assume that attempts to synthesize water will have no effect at all. It only needs to say that restrictions would still be required.

E.) No. The argument’s conclusion that restrictions are necessary can be true whether or not previous measures have been successful. The argument’s conclusion still stands if this answer choice is negated.

Necessary Assumption

Stimulus

Conclusion: Restrictions on water use will be necessary to meet the freshwater needs of humankind in the not-too-distant future. Why? The present freshwater supply may be adequate for today’s patterns of water use, but the human population will increase substantially over the next decade, which would increase the need for freshwater.

Need —> Necessary

The argument moves from a claim that the larger population in the future will need more water than the population today to the conclusion that restrictions on water usage will be necessary. This does not explain why restrictions will be the only way to meet those increased needs. The necessary assumption that there won’t be other ways of meeting the increasing needs.

A.) No. The argument is that restrictions are necessary to meet water needs. It does not require any assumptions about how well people will adapt to those restrictions.

B.) No, the argument does not need to look at current freshwater trends. It concludes that increased population needs will require restrictions, and this can be true if freshwater supply has been diminishing.

C.) Ding ding ding. Yup, this fills the gap and rules out the possibility of an alternate way of meeting the increased needs.

D.) Nope. The argument doesn’t presume not need to assume that attempts to synthesize water will have no effect at all. It only needs to say that restrictions would still be required.

E.) No. The argument’s conclusion that restrictions are necessary can be true whether or not previous measures have been successful. The argument’s conclusion still stands if this answer choice is negated.

Method of Reasoning

Sarah: Some schools want to foster a habit of volunteering in their students by requiring them to perform community service. But a person who has been forced to do something has not really volunteered, and since the habit of volunteering cannot be that you fostered it (you didn't volunteer for anything), therefore there is no way that this policy can succeed by itself.

Paul: I disagree. Some students who were forced to perform community service actually enjoyed it so much that they actually volunteered to do something similar. In these cases, the policy can clearly said to have fostered a habit of volunteering.

Both Sarah and Paul rely on different factual evidence, but neither one contradicts the other's premises. Their disagreement is between their conclusions: whether or not a policy forcing students into community service can, by itself, foster a habit of volunteering in those students.

A.) Nope, Paul does not accuse Sarah of circular reasoning. Sarah doesn't even commit circular reasoning.

B.) Nope. Sarah's definition of "volunteering" excludes activities someone has been forced into. Paul doesn't actually dispute this. Instead, Paul introduces new evidence about genuine, non-forced volunteer activities that some students pursue after performing forced community service.

C.) Ding ding ding. Sarah assumes that if an activity cannot be said to instill a habit of volunteering in a person right now, then that activity will never result in a habit of volunteering. Sarah assumes that forcing someone to volunteer will not cause them to actually volunteer of their own accord. Paul actually counters Sarah's assumption and brings up a new point about cases where students afterwards volunteer on their own because they enjoyed doing it as a requirement.

D.) Nope, Paul never brings up Sarah's motives.

E.) Nope, Paul actually never brings up a new policy as a consideration. Paul and Sarah are discussing the exact same policy, but Paul simply considers a broader set of consequences of that policy.

Paradox/Reconcile/Explain

Stimulus

Many elementary schools recently offered computer-assisted educational programs. After several years, the students' reactions have been mixed. Students have found computers very useful in studying arithmetic, but they have found computers of little help in studying science, and of no help at all with their reading and writing skills.

The discrepancy

Why have students found computers useful for arithmetic, but of little help for science, and of no help at all with their reading and writing skills?

What we need

We need an answer choice that states a difference between the study skills for arithmetic and the other subjects. Maybe the subjects are just different or something. Anyway, we need something that explains the difference.

A.) Wrong. How does this draw a distinction between arithmetic and the other subjects? This does not state that students started learning science and writing after first using computers, so it does not explain why computers were more helpful for learning arithmetic than for other subjects.

B.) Ding ding ding. This answer choice perfectly explains why arithmetic was more successful with computer-assisted learning than the other subjects. Since arithmetic is the most suitable to computer-assisted education, of course it would follow that students would find it the most useful than studying with other subjects.

C.) Wrong. This is just a cool fact, but doesn't help explain the why.

D.) Uhhhh, how does this help explain the discrepancy going on? It doesn't.

E.) Wrong. This would just further expand the discrepancy and make it even more confusing.

Tip to self: explain to yourself the discrepancy and stick to it. Try to come up with your own explanation, and run through the answer choices. Don't try to reason how the answer choices could work, but how it could strengthen or reason through the discrepancy.

Necessary Assumption

Stimulus

Psychotherapists should never provide psychotherapy on talk shows. Why? Psychotherapists who provide psychotherapy on radio or television talk shows can almost never provide high-quality psychological help.

There is a new term that is not connected to the rest of the argument: high-quality psychological help. The argument The argument moves from a claim about a specific downside of talk show psychotherapy (that it is not high quality) to a claim that talk show psychotherapy should never be provided. I need an answer choice that addresses this idea about providing high-quality psychotherapy.

A.) Nope, doesn't mention high-quality psychological help. Also, the "entertain a broad audience" wasn't apart of the main support. Get that shi outta here.

B.) Nope. Okay, cool man. I thought this was already addressed.

C.) I fell into the trap answer smhhhh. This is way too strong. The argument actually does not need to claim that it (therapy) should never provided if there is any change it isn't high quality. The argument actually looks at a single scenario where there is a very high change the advice isn't high quality.

D.) Wrong. Thought this answer choice actually hurts the answer choice in itself. Nope nope nope.

E.) Yup yup yup. Got this on BR. If this answer choice were to be negated, then psychotherapists might be right in attempting to provide psychological help even on talk shows, and this destroys the argument.

Flawed Parallel Reasoning Question Type

Stimulus

Not all tenured faculty are full professors.

Lawgic: Tenure <-s-> /Full Prof

Every faculty member in the linguistics department has tenure

Lawgic: Ling -> Tenure

Concusion: Not all of the faculty members in the linguistics department are full professors

Lawgic: Ling <-s-> Full Prof

Lawgic Chain:

Ling -> Tenure <-s-> /Full Prof

Ling <-s-> /Full Prof

OR

A -> B <-s-> /C THEREFORE A <-s-> /C

^^ We are looking for this flaw pattern in the answer choices.

The conclusion (A <-s-> /C) does not follow from the premises. Just because all A are B and some B are C, it does not follow that some A are C.

A.) Wrong. This is not flawed reasoning, but the conclusion here is valid.

Modern -> CC

Office Buildings <-s-> /CC

Conclude: Office Buildings <-s-> /Modern

B.) Incorrect. Reasoning here is valid as well.

MHB -> Massive

MHB <-s-> /Forbidding

Conclude: /Forbidding <-s-> Massive

C.) Ding ding ding. This is the same pattern as the stimulus and is therefore flawed. Matches the stimulus perfectly.

Famous arch <-s-> /Well-Prop

Govt -> Famous arch

Conclude: Govt <-s-> /Well-Prop

D.) Wrong, the answer choice is the wrong flaw. This is a flawed argument, but very different structure from what we are looking for.

Public <-s-> /Well-des

Public AND /Well-des <-s-> Orig. Private

Concludes: Public AND /Poorly Designed -> Orig. Private

E.) Nope, wrong. This is a valid conclusion and there is no flaw here.

Cath <-s-> /Stone

Cath -> Impressive

Conclude: /Stone <-s-> Impressive

Sheesssshhh, look at all that damn lawgic.

Strengthen (most support the argument = strengthen questions)

Stimulus

It is likely that more deaths are being reported as alcohol-related because physicians are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol-related. Why? Attitudes toward alcoholism have changed radically. Alcoholism is now widely viewed as a disease rather than a moral failing.

The stimulus says that the reason for the increase in reported alcohol-related deaths is not an increase in alcoholism, but an increase in reporting deaths as alcohol-related, due to the change in attitudes toward alcoholism. There is a significant assumption here: somehow, the change in attitudes toward alcoholism made physicians more likely to identify the deaths as alcohol-related. In other words, when alcoholism was viewed as a moral failing, physicians were less likely to identify deaths as alcohol-related, compared to now, when alcoholism is viewed as a disease.

Correctly chose C, but kept B as a contender. I thought this was an MSS question type and spent longer than necessary on this question -- not realizing it was actually a strengthen question.

B.) Incorrect. It does not matter whether "some places and times" have viewed susceptibility to any kind of disease as a moral failing. From the stimulus, alcoholism is already no longer viewed as a moral failing, but simply as a disease. This answer choice does not strengthen the author's support to the conclusion.

C.) Ding ding ding. This is the correct answer. We know from the stimulus that physicians are more likely to identify deaths as alcohol-related better now than in the past, and this answer choice helps support that idea. Why? The stimulus never discussed how the physicians were able to conclude that a death was alcohol-related and this answer choice helps explain the why factor really.

Last winter was mild enough to allow most bird species to forage naturally, which explains why the proportion of birds visiting feeders was much lower than usual.

Chain: Mild winter =c=> more natural forage =c=> less feeder visit

The mild winter also allowed many species to stay in their summer range all winter without migrating south, thereby limiting the usual attrition accompanying migration.

Chain: Mild winter =c=> less migration =c=> less attrition (aka more birds)

Conclusion: Hence, last year's mild winter is responsible for this year's large-than-usual bird population.

How do we connect "less feeder visits" to "less attrition" (more birds)?

C.) Correct answer. Diagrammed as: less feeder visits =c=> less eaten by predators. Less birds getting eaten by predators from the lack of feeder visits means that there is an increase in birds. Hence, why this would strengthen the reasoning of the argument.

A.) Nope. "Unusual?" How do we know this mild winter is deemed as "unusual?"

B.) Nope. I made the unwarranted assumption that they mated more since they did not migrate. How do we know that? We just don't know if the birds ended up mating more or less.

D.) No and no. The stimulus explicitly tells us that the birds are great and lived through the mild winter. In fact, they are thriving with their increased population. This doesn't apply to the situation.

E.) Hmm. Yeah, no. The stimulus already accounts for birds already using the feeders. Birds just aren't using them like they used to. I don't see how they can connect the feeders to the increase in bird population anyway.

Conclusion: First-year students with high levels of spending on recreation could reduce that spending WITHOUT increasing their anxiety or depression.

Evidence: Anxiety/depression levels the same. Highest levels of spending = lowest levels of spending

Why is B wrong?

B is saying that first-year students at the moderate levels of spending actually have the LOWEST levels of anxiety/depression compared to the highest-level and the lowest-level students. If this is true, then it would strengthen the author's argument because if the highest-level spending students decrease to the moderate level, then they wouldn't be increasing their anxiety or depression. Instead, they would be lowering it. This supports the author's conclusion entirely.

C is just outta da ballpark. Why do we care about those 40-60 year-old adults?

Weaken

Stimulus: Scientists compared a large group of joggers who habitually stretch before jogging to an equal number of joggers who don't stretch before jogging. Both these groups roughly got the same number of injuries. Conclusion - stretching before jogging does not help prevent injuries.

Goal: We need an answer choice that weakens the support from premises to conclusion. Perhaps, there are alternative reasons that stretching before jogging could actually prevent injury. Maybe in the experiment, they got old ass people as the before-jogging-stretchers and young folks in the no-before-jogging-stretch. Either way, we gotta show that the author's reasoning is ass.

A.) Okay, cool. We still need to explain why the hell the number of injuries in both groups were roughly the same. Skip.

B.) Hm. Lame. We still know that one group stretched before jogging and the other did not stretch. How would this weaken the argument? Skip.

C.) No, this would actually support the author's argument. Opposite of what we want. Skip.

D.) I did not like this answer, ewwww. Anyway, ding ding ding. If the more prone a jogger is to injuries and develops this habit of stretching before jogging, then this could demonstrate that perhaps group 1's (the stretching before jogging group) stretching actually prevents injuries. This is 'cause they were compared with group 2 (the no stretching before jogging group), and each group had roughly the same amount of injuries. If a group that is already prone to more injuries develops stretching before jogging, and then is compared to a new group that doesn't stretch at all, and in the end both groups actually have roughly the same amount of injuries, then perhaps stretching does prevent injuries (in this case, even more injuries for the more prone-to-injury group). Crazy.

E.) I fell for the trap smh. Wrongggg. The stimulus was about prevention, not about severity. We need an answer choice regarding stretching before jogging. We don't care about other studies.