@jmainor358 nope :(

I am going to ask a very stupid question, but I think I have to ask.

When the question is asking about what the passage is suggesting, is that explicitly asking what the author is suggesting? So we should rule out any perspective not attributed to the author?

I did not keep that in mind, and ended up choosing E

So this is how I got this right,

I realized that the passage is ruling out a phenomenon that could lead to the same result of another phenomenon(in this case temperature changes)

and that immediately led me to E, because this was the only one that had two causes possibly leading to the same result

Hope that helped!

@haena Now I get it, thanks! I realized that just because you can diagram it that does not mean that it has to be used for the question

QUICK QUESION

I get how in this stimulus the sentence with "not all" need not be considered because it has nothing to do with leading to the conclusion

But for further questions where I would have to diagram lawgic with a sentence with "not all",

how do I diagram it?

For instance, if its

not all X is Y, can I treat this as some X is Y?

I got this right but don't understand why C makes sense.

Should I consider being impartial also a process of juries coming to a decision?

I would have felt comfortable if they would explicitly mention "impartiality", but since I am seeing something else I am getting confused.

@Kevin_Lin Wow, I did not expect the main instructor to reply my complaint. Thank you so much! this helped me out

I guess the problem that I have is that I start questioning words that I would not have questioned at all. I should find out a way to work on this, because I realized that there are occasions to me where I fall for the least important stuff and treat it as if it is a trap

Thanks again Kevin!

@haena ohh wait that makes so much more sense. Thank you!

Hi!

Just for clarification,

would the two approaches mentioned in D be the one sided approach and structuring?

MY THOUGHTS ON WHY B IS CORRECT

I first got this wrong and I'll tell you why.

When I was reading the stimulus I thought,

what if 689 people were happy about his service and there were only 5 out of 5 complaints against Moore?

or

what if the complaint he received was NOT about his job? he could be receiving complaints about being late to work but could be an extremely competent plumber right?

and based on that thought, I thought E was the right answer, thinking that if we know the true motive to the complaint, then we see if the argument is valid or not.

Then I realize that the stimulus never talks about the reason WHY the complaints were filed. It just says it was filed. So the motive actually does not matter in this case.

Then I look at B, and at first was very confused. And to me it clicked when I saw Moore "who has a relatively small business"

what if Moore had 5 employees in his small business and received complaints about his employees and not from himself?

as soon as I thought this way, it made more sense and I felt comfortable to move on

I have no idea what this means.. is this normal or am I turning illiterate

I looked at the explanation for E and it says that if all effects are neutral then the mutation won't be favored.

Was I supposed to automatically think that neutral effects do not contribute substantially to survival

I dont know where to draw the lines between common sense and reasonable inference HELP!

This question gave me a headache at first, but here is how I worked through it.

Premise 1: Large-scale government projects (LSGP) usually benefit small segments of society, at least initially.

Premise 2: The more equally and widely political power is distributed, the less likely such projects are to receive funding.

Both premises are therefore discussing the likelihood that large-scale government projects will be funded.

Conclusion: Government by referendum, rather than by elected representatives, tends to diminish societal welfare.

Even though I was unsure what a referendum meant, I inferred from the comparison that it involves a more equal and widespread distribution of political power. This allows us to construct the reasoning chain:

Referendum → more equal political power → fewer large-scale projects funded → diminished welfare.

However, there is a logical gap here. The premises only establish that equal political power reduces the funding of large-scale government projects. They do not establish why a reduction in such projects would harm overall societal welfare.

Thus, the argument assumes that a decrease in the funding of large-scale government projects would negatively affect societal welfare.

This is similar to saying:

“Less exercise diminishes health.” This claim only makes sense if we assume that exercise contributes positively to health.

Answer choice A captures exactly this needed assumption by stating that large-scale government projects sometimes enhance societal welfare. The word “sometimes” is sufficient, because the argument only needs these projects to contribute positively in at least some cases.

Using the negation test clarifies this further. If we negate A:

Large-scale government projects never enhance societal welfare,

then the argument collapses. In that case, reducing the funding of such projects would not diminish welfare, and the conclusion would no longer follow.

Hope it helps!

This is the way how I understood it after wrestling with this for a WHILE

The "Don't attack the premise in weakening and strengthening" was very confusing but now I get what that means.

So if we look at the 2 premises:

Since it is implausible that hunting by these small bands of humans could have had such an effect -> Premise

Disease-causing microorganisms not native to North America were undoubtedly borne by the new arrivals as well as by the animals that followed them -> Premise

Notice how the first premise is actually not directly relevant to the migration explained in the first sentence of the stimulus. It actually just states that such an effect a small band could have from hunting is implausible.

Did the author say so hunting NEVER happened? No.

Because of the IMPLAUSIBILITY, that the essayist cannot believe it, the author is assuming the IMPROBABILITY, that it cannot have happened.

Our job for this question was to attack the improbability, that hunting did happen, which is C.

Hope this helps!

I think after a good amount of time struggling on this I finally feel comfortable on this question, so feel free to ask any questions if you will!

@SlippinJimmy2026 Welcome to the partyy

@dylanemein I think its because of where the question in located at. Its around at the end of the section, so I am assuming with timed pressure and an implicit assumption that questions 20 ~ 25 MUST have some trap in it gives an impressions that it should be harder than it is?

I first chose C, now I get why C is incorrect, but why A is correct is a bit confusing to me.

This might be a trivial issue, but because A said "Few" workers, I thought it was not good enough to consider this the strengthen the conclusion because that word opens the possibility of "some" workers in group B to have breakfast, which to me seems like a flaw in the experiment.

Or is this one of the questions where I should focus on the MOST strengthening answer choice and live with a little bit of discomfort

I just dont know if it is wrong for me to think that C could be wrong because the passage does not say the health benefits from wine are EXCLUSIVE to grapes. So would it be wrong for me to think that since we dont know about apples or plums, we can rule this out?

Seoul here!! Am I too late to join?

I guess the fact that there are no discussions here means that there's not much confusion. But for me, the wording of A just does not hit the spot.

to keep it simple, how am I supposed to know that it is the INSTITUTIONS that may wish to develop such policies?

Thank god reading the comments made me feel better. I also was confused about how initially I thought there were no right answer.

But I guess the question asked which answer choice has the MOST support, it should be an answer that relatviely supports the argument most.

C would then fit in to that category because we only have one thing to assume for it to be correct, that the Parthenon is a Grecian sculpture.

I guess the problem that I have here is that I don't have a solid concept of what an "evidence" should be, which is why I chose C. The explanation in third paragraph of Passage 3 was to me the evidence part.

How do I get out of this rabbit hole? Any tips?

For A, where can I find the part where the author "espouses" a general view? To me, I only see principles being introduced without any espousals.

Was there a key word that supports the first part of answer choiceA?

@Jsonf wow you nailed it. thanks!

S.O.S!

So I should ask since I am confused with why B is incorrect.

I figured that the reasoning structure for the stimulus is suggesting a conclusion based on what happened in the past.

So my first attempt was to find out similar cases, which to me, flipping the coin six times was an event that happened in the past.

Am I wrong? what would be another way to explain it?

I think in J.Y's explantion he talks about the second half of the sentence, but I'm not convinced yet.

Can anyone help?

Was this question so east that nobody had any questions..

because I am curious where I can find the clue for "confident" endorsement