- Joined
- Apr 2026
- Subscription
- Coach
Admissions profile
Discussions
First, the concl introduces the concept of "choosing wisely." So, we need to bridge that gap. Throw out ACs that don't mention "choosing wisely". That's A and D, gone!
B - Control of their emotions? Irrelevant.
C - Lessons of history? Irrelevant.
Even now - we can choose E WITHOUT EVEN READING IT. But we shouldn't do that. Here is how we make sure:
Stim/argument = unchanged (A), therefore can't choose more wisely (B):
A
----------
B
What do we need here? What is being assumed?
The conditional statement is being assumed. We need to establish:
A -> B
E gives us the contrapositive of A -> B.
Able to choose wisely (/B) -> change happened (/A)
/B - > /A
Negation test:
Without that relationship, so if /(A->B), the argument can't function.
I also got tripped up by the misleading/deceptive language.
But - we need to remember what the stem is asking of us:
"Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument?"
Out of the 5 ACs, which is the best?
It can't be C, because we are not told specifics about the data Baumgartner uses beyond that it tells an incomplete story. So, we can't say it is inaccurate.
Eliminating C, we are left with A. A is NOT PERFECT, but it is the best choice.
This gets MUCH easier if we ask ourselves:
"What gives us more reason to believe (the concl) that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people aged 65+?"
___
B) *Maybe* means there are fewer young people, but we don't know that. And even if we did, this weakens the argument by giving us another reason for the average age increase from 52 to 57, but NOT more reason to believe in the CONCLUSION.
C) Fewer people total. Doesn't help us believe the conclusion.
D) More people total. Doesn't help. Same as C.
E) We don't care about other regions. Doesn't help.
So - POE leaves A, and with a little time we can see that this gives us an additional reason to believe that there has been a DRAMATIC increase in the number of 65+.
A) Eliminates the alternative hyp that the average age increase is because there are fewer young people. So if there are MORE young people but the average age INCREASED, there must be EVEN MORE older folks 65+.
@Allen_the_Alien +1 to the quick read of the stem and thinking it was SA. On second look its asking for a rule without which the argument can't work, not that it would guarantee the concl.
My issue here was that I didn't pull "mathematically representing" into the second and third sentences. Why should I take the second sentence as talking about mathematical representation?
From my read, we don't know anything about N-EG except that it is much more useful in "developing certain areas of scientific theory." And even though I actually know that N-EG involves math, this didn't cue me to carry over the idea. I read B and thought it was a trap answer because of that. C still felt shakey because of "complete."
@Dylanoc90 It came back on for a little while and is back to "Sorry, something went wrong..."
This Q is categorized in the analytics just as Strengthen - the stem seems clearly PSAr and the explanation starts by saying it is PSA...
I chose D, but it took me a while. I eventually landed on how D brings the argument/experiment/study further away from the ideal experiment.
If one experimental group is so much larger (D says a large automobile is "far more likely" to be in the experiment/study than a small automobile) than the other, it is an easy place to point to for weakening an argument.
The other ACs just don't get there. So I POEd my way to D.
Tutors! Did I do a great job here or did I get lucky??
@Daisy228 mine had a little arrow underneath the stim I had to click, then they popped up.
@maco4538797 But that isn't the case here. This goes:
A->B->C->D->A - we just know from the Stim that A can't happen unless A happens. So circular.