I did get why the rest of the answer choices are wrong, but still don't understand why A is right.

to me, (A) is 3rd factor other than those two mentioned in the passage (too quick, poorly organized).

I understood the passage itself is completing the argument in this form:

X can be caused by A or B

A is not the case

Therefore, X is caused by B

and the choice (A) is suggesting that another factor C is not the case;

X can be caused by A or B

A is not the case

C is not the case (choice (A))

Therefore, X is caused by B

with this process, I thought the choice (A) may 'strengthen' the argument, but not necessarily required.

I don't know why did I even think that tracking the number of audiences for each allotted airtime is possible

So far I love it but I know I'll regret saying this once I see the questions

excited for the new session!

Hi!!

@haena Thank you sm!!

@saulgoodman13 it's simply comparing two options: [pizza delivery] and [cook a complete dinner]

Also, it's not clear what are the cost/benefit for having a pizza delivered.

The right form should be cost>benefit,

in terms of money: [pizza delivery] > [cook a complete dinner]

=> [pizza delivery] =/= cost

[cook a complete dinner] =/= benefit

I love Theodora

I skipped A because I thought it should be 'critic's prediction was conditioned did not obtain', not 'economist's prediction'.

No idea why did I even think in this way but still confused🙂

I went with (A) and thought if (A) is false, the argument fails.

I guess I failed to differentiate 'different compositions' and 'different textures'....

I still don't understand why 'unimportant' is considered different from 'being overlooked', while 'ignore' can be understood as the same.

5/5 for the first time!!!!

I know it's not really important but I can't understand scientific fraud =/= academic fraud.

I thought it can be interpreted that those two are the same, or scientific fraud can be included in academic fraud.

@SadieIgoe We got this!!!

@IsabellaP

I thought the word 'transformable' meant this!

(Peer review question)

For example,

this question was asking to find the AC that most supports the argument which is below:

[It would be conducive to progress in physics if physicists were to do the same thing.]

If we transform the format of the argument into

[It would be not conducive to progress in physics if physicists were to do the same thing.] ,

now we need to find the AC that weakens the argument, not supports or strengthen.

this example might seems quite confusing, but it's easier to approach after transforming weaken/strengthen/evaluate for some questions I think.

@HenryLehmann

I think the important fact is that for [older than 65], the percentage of malnourishment is higher than that of poverty, and for [65 or younger] is opposite.

This can be organized like this:

[65+] : malnourishment > poverty

[65-] : malnourishment < poverty

Like you said, we don't know the actual percentage or each group, and also it can be like the case you mentioned. However, this does not affect the answer choices since they're talking 'inside' their group.

Hope this helps!

@gray

It's De Morgan's Laws!

(D) No independently owned pet store in West Calverton sells tropical fish but not exotic birds.

=

fish and /bird -> /indy

=

indy -> /fish or bird (De Morgan's Laws - change 'and' to 'or' , and negate each elements)

Hope this helped you! :)

@OonaMilliken

Buy only if A and B and C

can be presented as lawgic below:

buy -> A and B and C

which is

buy -> confident in auth. AND desire for intrinsic AND not just for investment

As you can see, the buyer who is confident in auth. and desirable for intrinsic is already not trying to buy the thing just for investment.

I think this is why we can drop the last condition.

Hope this helped you! :)