0:00 slower than target, I must be #himothy.

"Proportion" in the conclusion of the stimulus is what really tipped me off. A and C were the only two answers that directly mention proportion in the conclusion. Went through both and A is the right choice!

Some questions have dead giveaways in premises/conclusion. "Based on past experience" in the stimulus conclusion tells you everything you need to know looking for the right answer, that it is going to be referencing events in the past to predict a likewise conclusion for the present.

"Not" as the premise indicator in the conclusion gave it away

I understand why B is right given the other answers, but it is a horrible answer choice. Preferring one thing over the other does NOT mean the thing preferred would please. It's never mentioned Drew was pleased even in the slightest having received the flowers, only that one of them is preferred. Absolutely a big leap that the answer takes that for the most part is wholly unsupported by the stimulus.

#feedback I think the way in which why A was the right answer was a bit confusing. The justification I went through in picking it was that eliminating diary may prevent heart disease, but would not necessarily have a negative effect on "good health," which is the conclusion of the argument. I do understand the explanation, but I don't think its ever explicitly stated how the answer choice falls in relation to the main conclusion of the stimulus.

The greatest explanation on this website by far.

Question is what statement about the colorist would Chopin agree with. Paragraph 3 states that Chopin departed from the local colorists because she did not portray intense psychological states with "romantic/passionate language" from the books of her youth, as the local colorists did, rather, Chopin did so in an "uninflected" manner. Couldn't it be said that presenting something as "uninflected" be similar to how one might present something as "scientific?" Or was Chopin not aware of this distinction between herself and the local colorists within her lifetime? Confused.

Conclusion: The ice sheet on Antarctica must have melted 3 million years ago.

Support: 3 million year old fossils were found beneath the ice sheet, which is thought to be about 14 million years old.

Flaw: The argument presumes, without justification, that because one event could possibly explain an anomaly, then that event must have definitely happened.

A) is wrong because the "given position" is not shown to be believed in any scope outside the author.

B) is wrong because the part of the argument the author states about the probable causes of melting is not itself part of the argument. The fact that these two things independently could have melted it, does not preclude the fact that they could not have operated together. This would only be the case if the author picked one of these causes over the other.

C) is wrong for the same reason as B); the speculation of causes is not itself part of the argument. In fact, the very flaw of the argument is that the argument does not establish that the melting even occurred.

D) is wrong because there is no indication on how "narrow" the range of possible melting. Again, the very flaw of the argument is that the argument does not establish that the melting even occurred.

E) is correct, because it points out that the very flaw of the argument is that the argument does not establish that the melting even occurred, and that melting is treated as the only possibility.

Conclusion: Economists who claim that financial rewards provide the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over the other overestimate the degree to which people are motivated by money in choosing a job.

Evidence: Some surveys said that most people do not name salary as the most desirable feature of a job.

Assumption: Salary to financial rewards, survey reliability.

A) is wrong because there is nothing to suggest that the ability to buy all goods desired is even a consideration.

B) is tricky. It states that in some surveys, people (how many?) say they would prefer a high wage job with an otherwise identical job with lower wages. The problem here is that we do not know the proportion of people in the surveys here as we do in the stimulus. Even then, the author says that money isn't the strongest concern, which means it nonetheless could be a concern for any number of people.

C) is correct because it highlights the conflation between salary and financial rewards that the author takes for granted. The economists mention financial rewards provide the strongest incentives for job selection. The author says that because high salary is not the most (#1) desirable incentive according to the surveys, then money in general is not the #1 incentive. If jobs that paid the same salary varied considerably in financial benefits (rewards), then this weakens the contention the author makes based on salary and money in general.

D) is incorrect because there is nothing to suggest the motivations of people in their actual jobs (not choosing), and how they would feel, etc.

E is wrong because like D), there is nothing to suggest how people with high salaries act.

MP: author says that laypeople's perceptions of risk (voluntary v. involuntary risk) should not inform government policy, and that it should aim to save as many lives as possible with its given resources.

A) is wrong because the author specifies that the governments efforts to reduce risk/save lives are subject to its resources, so it would not be "whenever," but more likely "whenever possible given its resources."

B) is right, because in the discussion of the first reason for the argument (hard to determine) the author rejects the dichotomous aspect of the laypeople's definition of risk, and says it is rather "one of degree." So some would be more voluntary and others not.

C) is wrong because there is nothing to support policy experts (government) aptitude in forming judgment's on the laypeople's perspectives

D) is wrong because there is nothing to say that the government should increase its resources. Even then, presumably, the government's directive would still be constrained to this increase.

E is wrong because it is the opposite of what the author says. First, the author says that government polices to reduce risk/save lives are justified, so long as they DO NOT comport (agree) with laypeople's beliefs.

ok

I lost brain cells trying to get myself down to the stupidity of this argument. Well done LSAC.