Use your discretion, you know more about yourself than others. Have you done worse when you've taken a break? If so, then probably continue to drill but go light. If not, then maybe a break is for you. Ultimately, it's your decision based on your personal experience.

I thought D was wrong for a different reason. I said "we don’t know if they do or do not fall within the scope because we don’t know what the scope of the UNESCO UCH is. We don’t know how much power it has and to what range they can apply that power." -- I'm not sure if this line of reasoning is correct or not #help

This question sucks. I thought D wasn't the answer because, if most accidents occur in large vehicles and, despite most accidents occurring in large vehicles, they are still less likely to get injured only proves to me that large vehicles are safer and less injury prone. I thought it strengthened rather than weakened.

@OwenLavine yeah but an unknown natural cause isn't an answer choice, even if that was an answer choice, it still wouldn't support the argument. The argument that the author makes is that the cause must be volcanic. By saying that it could be an unknown natural cause, the authors argument that it's volcanic gets weakened. From the two known natural causes, B cancels out one of the natural causes that it could be (meteorites) which supports the author's argument that it is probably volcanic.

a) As one gets older one gets wiser. Since Henrietta is older than her daughter, Henrietta must be wiser than her daughter.

• This is wrong not because it isn’t following similar reasoning pattern but rather because of some other bullshit reasoning about the ‘soundness’ of the argument. If you really look into it, it is wrong.

• What if Henrietta’s daughter got wiser far faster as she got older? That means that Henrietta’s daughter could be far wiser than her mom because wiseness is not measurable and doesn’t steadily increase at the same rate for everyone like thinness of air at certain altitudes or rings around a tree at a certain age. Could you guarantee that, let’s say, at the age of 21 everyone has the same degree of wiseness? As one gets older, one can get wiser, sure, but one can get wiser to a greater degree than someone else at the same age. This answer choice doesn’t take that into consideration. It doesn’t take into consideration a steady rate of increase (if A increases, then B increases at a proportional rate) like AC D does and like the stimulus does.

e) Rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful.

• While this seems like such a random thing to say, it is the only answer that doesn’t go against what is written in the stimulus nor does it state something unnecessary. If the rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful, then we have essentially removed another factor that would have otherwise impacted how we determine a rattlesnake’s age. If the rattlesnake molted more when food was plentiful, then the snake would have looked older than what its actual age is. In removing this additional factor, we are allowing for the conclusion to follow logically.

This question threw me for an absolute loop. But I figured it out and I explained it to myself.

No one who works at Leila's Electronics has received both a poor performance evaluation and a raise. Lester has not received a raise, so it must be that he has received a poor performance evaluation.

• Work at Leila’s Electronics → (Poor performance ←/→ Raise)

  • /Raise → Poor performance

• What’s the flaw

  • The fact that two events can’t occur at the same time does not mean that one them has to occur, it could be possible the Lester received neither a raise nor had a poor performance

  • Mistaken negation: A and B can’t occur together so if A does not occurs, B must occur (if /raise → poor performance)

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?

a) No one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it. So, since my next-door neighbours pay rent on their house, it must be that they do not own it.

• This is valid, it’s saying that if A occurs, then it must be that B does not occur. This is the opposite of a mistaken negation (therefore a correct negation). A mistaken negation says if /A → B, this is saying if A → /B

• So in conclusion, this is how the logic looks:

  • Live in house → (own ←/→ rent)

  • Rent (neighbours) → /own – not a mistaken negation and is a valid conclusion that is formed from the initial condition.

b) No one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it. My next-door neighbours own their house. Therefore, it must be that they do not pay rent on it.

• This is valid, it’s saying that if A occurs, then it must be that B does not occur. This is the opposite of a mistaken negation (therefore a correct negation). A mistaken negation says if /A → B, this is saying if A → /B

• So in conclusion, this is how the logic looks:

  • Live in house → (own ←/→ rent)

  • Own (neighbours) → /rent – not a mistaken negation and is a valid conclusion that is formed from the initial condition.

c) My neighbours have not paid any rent on their house. Since anyone who lives in a house but does not rent it owns it, it must be that they own it.

• This is wrong/flawed for a different reason. This answer choice says “my neighbour did not pay rent” and then it creates this condition “Live in house → (/rent → owns)

• But, they didn’t pay rent, that’s not the same as not renting. It could be that they didn’t pay rent because they own it. Or because they were late on payments. 

  • Paying rent also isn’t the sufficient condition for the conditional statement (/rent → owns). The sufficient condition is that if ‘you are not renting’, then you are owning. But clearly, we see that paying rent and actually renting are not the same thing, so this answer choice is wrong because the sufficient condition isn’t actually even fulfilled. 

d) My next-door neighbours do not own their house. Since no one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it, it must be that my next-door neighbours pay rent on their house.

• Live in house → (own ←/→ rent)

  • /own (neighbours) → rent

• This follows exactly the way the stimulus sets out. It has the same conditional logic and forms the same flawed mistaken negation conclusion. This is the correct answer

e) Anyone who lives in a house but does not own it pays rent on it. My next-door neighbours do not own their house. Therefore, it must be that they pay rent on it.

• This at first seems similar to the stimulus since it looks like a mistaken negation (if /own→rent). But then you need to see the other part, “anyone who lives in a house but does not own it, pays rent” this is a condition where /own → rent. Since the conclusion (neighbours don’t own so they rent) follows this condition exactly, that is valid.

@jack_willard but if this is true, then c should have also been a weakening answer since it also mentions dust but not cosmic dust, no?

@letsgobabe555 hi, the stimulus does actually indirectly mention immoral guests. This is shown when it states "by constantly being show the least moral people in our society". Least moral people includes people that are on the talk show -- which is the talk show host, and also anyone else that may be on the show. This includes guests which are the 'least moral people' aka 'immoral people'. Easy to miss, I missed it too.

thought process:

1. "most lecturers who are effective teachers are eccentric"

   1. effective --(most)--> eccentric

      1. inherent inference: If most effective teachers are eccentric, that means some effective teachers are eccentric too.

         1. effective <--(some)--> eccentric

            1. some relationships are double arrow relationships

2. "some non-eccentric lecturers are effective teachers"

   1. eccentric <--some--> effective

3. "every effective teacher is a good communicator"

   1. effective --> good communicator

Combining things and making inferences

1. we can combine #2 and #3 to get:

   1. eccentric <--some--> effective --> good communicator

      1. from this we can infer that eccentric <--some--> good communicator

         1. "some good communicators are noneccentric" OR "some noneccentric teachers are good communicators"

2. we can combine #1 and #3 to get:

   1. good communicator <-- effective <--some--> eccentric

      1. from this we can infer that good communicator <--some--> eccentric

         1. "some good communicators are eccentric" OR "some eccentric teachers are good communicators"

from the two inferences made, only A follow through correctly

@emilylu yeah you're right

I was stuck between C and D but chose C instead. My thinking was that if subscribers cancel the service, then they will maybe go back to an answering machine. This would hurt the claim that 'answering machines will be obsolete'. Thinking more on it, the fact that they will cancel does not guarantee the fact that they will go back to an answering machine

I chose right but A was a contender. My interpretation was that "if a measure (raised taxes) is required to solve problem (homelessness), then it should be adopted (government steps in)". Would this be the correct approach to this question or did I just get lucky?

@callofdutykaz the two claims, the first about mediation, and the second about correctness are not related to one another. There's no connection there. The first sentence and the last sentence are connected to each other based on the fact that both discuss compromise. This answer is wrong because it connects the mediation, and correctness statements together when they have no relation or connection and therefore, there isn't any solid conclusion that can be based on this.

what does it mean when the weaker the argument, the more and less reasonable the assumptions?

@TSpriester Wow. absolute bars right here. that made so much more sense