Maybe the phrase "no convincing argument has shown that Beethoven had VD" is enough for us to assume that not everyone had it. If everyone had VD, that would be a convincing argument that Beethoven had it, but we don't have any convincing arguments.

I think that makes sense because the sufficient assumption could basically be anything--- it doens't have to be that particular assumption; a different assumption could fill in for it. The necessary assumption MUST be that particular assumption.

Could someone expound on this a little more? Can "will" be treated as a conditional indicator? #help

I tried to eliminate answer choice E because of the word "is." I thought it would have been better to say "could be" --- "having identical overall population density [could be] consistent with a great disparity..." Doesn't mean that it IS consistent. Isn't there a chance that it's not consistent? Could someone clarify this?? #help

B could be correct if it was talking about "business" prosperity, NOT family prosperity.

I literally just saw that the premise had a bunch of conditional statements and then guessed that it might be sufficiency and necessity confusion. Found that in the answer choices... maybe that's not the most reliable way. Someone correct me.

#help (Added by Admin)

I guess the trick for this one is that the two arguments must prove out the same conclusion. That's why B is such a huge trap answer choice: the second argument doesn't touch the conclusion at all; totally irrelevant.

So basically, she wants to vote for the candidate that has the most opinions in common (when conditions are met that she's voting). Correct?

#help (Added by Admin)

I can't seem to make the first sentence make sense in "english" when I think about it. If the residents don't ban together, then the bill will be approved (/BT---> A). Just by my intuition, it SOUNDS like if they do ban together, then it won't be approved (BT --->/A). I know that's not right, but it sure sounds like it is. I know it's not totally necessary to have the intuition in line with the logic, but it seems to help speed when it is. Can anyone shed some light on this? #help

On the actual test, should we literally write out these conditional statements on scratch paper or something? Can we have scratch paper during the LR section? #help

Here’s a hack I figured out with weakening questions:

Almost all the answer choices fall into one of the following 3 categories-

1) Attack – removes the connection between the premise and the conclusion. (Right answer)

2) Strengthening – actually strengthens the argument instead of weakens

3) Premise – information that either ads context, future implication, more detail, or just irrelevant facts. (Majority of answer choices)

You can identify option 3 by hypothetically adding the answer choice to the argument. Does the conclusion still stand if the test authors had included it in the stimulus? If so, it’s not weakening anything.

Thinking about the questions like this have improved my score on these, but someone tell me if I’m in error somehow.

I find it helpful to understand exactly which trap each answer choice is trying to play to.

a) This is basically opposite of the assumption we're looking for.

b) This could be an assumption, but we also could assume that the scientists took this into account.

c) Irrelevant answer choice

e) Another irrelevant answer choice but could sound sneakily relevant.

The biggest flaw in the reasoning is that the passage tries to predict the future using an average statistic on a specific case (average crashes on an airline). We're trying to find that same pattern of reasoning flaw in the answers.

a) Wrong. Specific case, yes. Average statistic, no.

b) Right. Specific case, yes. Average statistic, yes. Average statistic: average chance a baboon ascends to dominance is 1-10. Specific case: he baboon we know nothing about. Perfect.

c) Wrong. Specific case, yes. Average statistic, yes. BUT it does NOT try to predict a specific outcome. The answer didn't say, "Marty, therefore can expect to be in an accident because..."

d) Wrong. Average statistic, yes. Specific case, NO. Notice, we're not talking about a specific adult, we're talking about an average adult the entire time.

e) Wrong. Specific case, yes. Average statistic, NO. This is the chess master's average, NOT a general average. If the answer had averaged EVERYONE who played at the tournament and then applied it to this case, then that could be a similar flaw. It did not, however. This one is specific case, specific statistic.

Moral of the story—keep your average statistics with average cases, NOT average statistics with specific cases.

I played it safe and went with "usually = some". You get the right choice that way too.

This is very helpful. The "point of refusal" would later be defined as what Pointe achieved: "penetration into the ground was no greater than 2 inches after 24 hammer blows." Conceivably, there will be no point at which a pike will ultimately stop going into the ground; it will forever get deeper. It's just that "refusal" for this particular standard for our purposes is defined as "2 inches after 24 hammer blows."