Hello everyone! I just want to say how I'm pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoy live sessions. I used to think they sound too complicated to integrate into my schedule, but after trying them out today, they're actually very enjoyable, and knowing that there are real people on the other end of the screen makes the studying experience a lot less isolating. Looking forward to more classes (and the selection is also amazing)!
B is correct because it offers a third phenomenon that independently affects the tendancy for a manufacturer to improve safty training and the number of on-the-job accidents, removing the assumed causal relationship between the initial two phenomena.
A is incorrect because it merely talks about statistics of on-the-job accidents in a different sector without any explanations.
C is incorrect because the stimulus is conerned with increases in on-the-job accidents FOLLOWING safty training improvements, whereas C is talking about accidents BEFORE the improvements.
D is incorrect because it actually makes the phenomenon even more puzzling if the possibility of it being a random fluctuation is ruled out.
E is incorrect because the presense of safety measure before the improvements took place is irrelevant to the observed increase in accidents following the improvements.
@LiaWang I chose B on the first go and then chose C on blind review. I initially chose B because I misread the question stem to be looking for a principle that aligns rather than conflicts with the editor's logic. B successfully backs up the editor's argument, but the question stem is looking for the opposite effect. When I realized this on blind review, I chose C because I saw that Mr. Hanion is a trusted source with a good reputation. However, where C goes wrong is how it is concered with sources the outlet has trusted in the past. We know nothing about whether the newspaper has trusted Mr. Hanion in the past; all we know is that Mr. Hanion has a good reputation. This is where I let my assumptions kick in, leading to my demise. I also erroneously skipped over A because I intentionally disregarded the part of the stimulus that said "(admittedly extraordinary)" because I assumed it was extra fluff meant to distract.
A is correct because it successfully refutes the letter's argument that the newspaper should not have been skepitcal of Mr. Hanlon's claim. The letter concedes that the claim was extraordinary, and also indicates that Mr. Hanlon did not provide evidence. The principle in A would therefore render the newspaper justified in its skepticism.
B is incorrect because Mr. Hanlon's claim is not an intermediary source, and so the principle does not apply to the case in the stimulus.
C is incorrect because there is nothing in the stimulus that indicates whether or not the newspaper ever trusted Mr. Hanlon.
D is incorrect because it does not address the newspaper and instead addresses Mr. Hanlon, whereas the letter is concerned with the actions of the newspaper.
E is incorrect because the argument in the letter is directed against the skepticism in the newspaper's portrayal of Mr. Hanlon's claim. The letter is not claiming that the newspaper must publish reports that are not confirmed by an independent source, so E is irrelevant.
C is correct. This can be seen through an analysis of the positions. Ramona claims that students miss out on being exposed to a wide range of ideas when they choose technical majors, so Ramona would agree with the statement. In Martin's response, he implies that technical students also get exposure to a wide range of ideas by claiming that they are required to take some liberal arts classes. However, in saying this he implicitly concedes that technical classes themselves do not expose students to a wide range of ideas.
A is incorrect because neither Ramona nor Martin argues that students are stimulated to grow intellectually only in English classes.
B is incorrect because neither Ramona nor Martin argues that only graduates with degrees in technical subjects get good jobs.
D is incorrect because, while it can be argued that Ramona values intellectual growth over financial security, Martin has no position on this.
E is incorrect because, while it can be argued that Ramona values intellectual growth over financial security, Martin has no position on this.
@LiaWang
I chose E on the first go, but second-guessed myself on blind review and picked D. The reason I did not fully commit to E was because I did not fully understand the stimulus, particulary the claim that alarmists fail to distinguish the incident and behaviour that caused it from the disposition of people not to pollute. I did not register that it meant people were inclined not to pollute. Additionally, I also thought that just because it is easier to pollute than not pollute, following the principle about least resistence does not necessarily mean than people are more inclined to pollute. However, this reasoning was flawed, and it does imply that people are more inclined to pollute.
E is correct. This can be seen through an analysis of the two council members. Member P implies that people are inclined not to pollute when he claims that alarmists fail to distinguish incident and behavior from the disposition of people not to pollute. Member Q implies that people are inclined to pollute when he claims that it is easier to pollute than not to pollute, and actions tend to follow the path of least resistance (i.e. to pollute).
A is incorrect because neither member denies that pollution should be considered a problem.
B is incorrect because neither member denies that actions tend to follow the path of least resistance. While member Q explicitly agrees with it, member P provides no opinion on it.
C is incorrect because neither member denies that people are responsible for pollution. Member P is not concerned with responsibility; he is concerned with the character alarmists attribute to people. Member Q also doesn't talk about responsibility and merely states the fact that actions tend to follow the path of least resistance.
D is incorrect because neither member denies that people can change their behavior and not pollute. While member P claims that people have the disposition not to pollute (and still pollute), he does not claim that people cannot change. The same goes for member Q: although people tend to follow the path of least resistance, this does not mean that they cannot change.
E is correct. This can be seen through an analysis of the two positions. When Jessica claimed that the budget surplus should only be used to increase government payments, it can be inferred that she thinks there is no better way to use the surplus. Marcie directly aligns with the statement in E by claiming that there is indeed a better use of the surplus.
A is incorrect because neither position disagrees that increasing government payments is putting the surplus into good use.
B is incorrect because neither position argues about what the public deserves.
C is incorrect because neither position argues what should usually be done in a given scenario; just what should be done in this particular scenario.
D is incorrect because neither position disagrees that creating jobs through public works will benefit the public.
E is correct. This can be seen through an analysis of both positions: Jenkins claims that the research should be carried out on the coldest months to avoid the risk of wasting funding. Lurano claims that the research should be carried out on the warmer (though still "quite" cold) months to avoid the risk of harm to the researchers. Therefore, the disagreement lies on whether research funding considerations outweigh researcher safety considerations.
A is incorrect because neither parties reject the possibility of snow melting during April and May.
B is incorrect because neither parties claim that it is impossible to investigate snow after February.
C is incorrect because neither parties claim that funding will be wasted; Jenkins says funding might be wasted. It could possibly be argued that Lurano claims that funding will not be wasted due to the "quite" coldness of April and May, but this still leaves the issue where Jenkins did not say that funding will definitely be wasted.
D is incorrect because neither parties disagree with the fact that January and February will be colder than April and May.
D is correct. This can be seen through an analysis of the two positions. According to Waller:
EP-exists -> generally-accepted
/generally-accepted -> /EP-exists
However, according to Chin, public opinion will always favour the skeptics who remain close-minded to the possibility of EP, so the failure of the general public to believe in extrasensory perception could simply be the result of elite attitudes.
A is incorrect because neither positions are concerned with whether EP is real.
B is incorrect because it is worded too strong; Waller only claimed if EP existed, it would be generally accepted, not that it could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all skeptics.
C is incorrect because neither positions talk about the strength of skeptics' cases.
E is incorrect because, while Waller main argue that E is false, Chin does not disagree with E.
E is correct because the conditions laid out for a work to be part of world literature include having had made an impact both within the author's country and and external ones. As a result, if the work only affected the development of a single country, we can be sure that the condition was not met.
A is incorrect because the stimulus says nothing about what it takes for a work of literature to be well received.
B is incorrect because the stimulus says nothing about how much a work offers to readers.
C is incorrect because the stimulus says nothing about the meaningfulness of a work.
D is incorrect because the stimulus does not talk about what influences the work and instead talks about what the work needs to have influenced.
D is correct because it points out the assumption made in the application of the principle. The principle is concerned with activity that does not detract children from social development, while the application merely involves reducing time spent interacting with others. It does not make the connection of why this would lead to a detraction from social development.
A is incorrect because the distinction between the principle as a universal claim and a mere generalization does not matter in this scenario.
B is incorrect because the principle is not concerned with cost-benefits.
C is incorrect because the application does not interpret the principle to be in part a claim about what is unhealthy; it does address what is not healthy, which is simply the opposite of what's stated in the principle.
E is incorrect because the application did not confuse sufficiency for necessity.
B is correct because it follows logically from Lawgic:
participate -> certificate
participate <-s-> /active
certificate <-s-> /active
Since some of those who received a certificate are not active, we can conclude that not all who received a certificate are active.
A is incorrect our Lawgic only yielded the fact that some people who are inactive received a certificate, and nothing was yielded concerning those who are active.
C is incorrect because participants in the downtown arts fair did not connect to anything in our Lawgic. Although one might interpret the stimulus to mean that one cannot participate in both events (due to its claim that they were happening at the same time), the stimulus never says this, and it would be an assumption.
D is incorrect because participating in the cleanup is a sufficient condition for receiving a certificate but not a necessary one. D is confusing sufficiency for necessity.
E is incorrect because the stimulus says nothing about concerns for the environment, nor the environment at all.
E is correct because it successfully explains why most classic jazz recordings will not be transferred on compact discs by record companies if few are played on the radio: because not being played on the radio is sufficient to conclude that those recordings will not be profitable (and being profitable is states as a necessary condition for record companies to transfer recordings).
A is incorrect because it is simply a restatement of the conclusion, not an explanation in support of that conclusion. The question stem is asking what would fill the gap between the support and conclusion.
B is incorrect because it does not explain why not being played on the radio leads to the conclusion given. B is simply a restatement of one of the premises.
C is incorrect because it tells us what is necessary for a recording to be played on radio, not what is necessary for record companies to believe what can be profitably sold as compacts. Keyword here is "the only"; if it were instead just "only," then this answer choice would be correct. However, because it is "the only," then this is wrong.
D is incorrect because the truth of it does nothing to explain why few jazz recordings will be transferred. Obviously record companies will be more interested in making a profit, and it explains nothing.
@LiaWang I got it right but I almost chose D because I thought the stimulus failed to take into account that the University Hospital's average length of stay was related to the recovery rate of its patients, in that their patients recovered slower. However, I totally overlooked the second sentence in the stimulus which explicitly said, "studies show that recovery rates at the two hospitals are similar for patients with similar illnesses," which directly opposes this assumption.
The correct answer is C. C is correct because it correctly identifies the possibility that the differenecs in average lengths of stay for the two hospitals is a result of differing types of illnesses treated at these hospitals and thus the differing lengths of stays required by patients at the hospitals.
A is incorrect because the author specifically says that University Hospital could decrease its average length of stay WITHOUT affecting quality of care, direcctly contradicting A.
B is incorrect because the author makes no attempt at confusing sufficiency for necessity.
D is incorrect because the author is not saying to reduce the length of stay on the grounds that length of stay is not relevant to recovery rates. Instead, it's grounded in the observation that Edgewater Hospital's average length of stay is shorter, despite similar rates of recovery for similar illnesses. If instead the conclusion is that University Hospital could decrease its average length of stay to well-below that of Edgewater Hospital, then D would make a little more sense (although it still wouldn't address the greater issue of the author disregarding the overall distribution of data in favour of the average).
E is incorrect because preferring longer stays does not mean that University Hospital would comprimise their quality of care if they were to discharge their patients earlier, so as long as the patients are fully recovered.
@LiaWang I got this wrong (back when I was a rookie) because I did not quite understand the meaning of confusing sufficiency for necessity at the time. As a result, I passed A off as incorrect, which led me to struggle to find the "right" answer. I settled with D because to me it captured the concept that the theorist erroneously assumed that only organisms capable of planned locomotion has a CNS because a CNS is biologically useful for that purpose. If answer D does in fact mean this, then it would be correct. However, it really is a stretch to say that answer choice D as it is means what I thought it meant, and so it is wrong.
A is correct because the theorist claims that an organism incapable of planned locomotion does not have a CNS solely on the grounds that a CNS is necessary for planned locomotion. In other words, it assumes planned locomotion is necessary for having a CNS when it is in actuality merely sufficient for having one.
B is incorrect because it only addresses half of the conjunction within the chain and thus does not address an actual part of the chain at all (it would be different if it were a disjunction instead).
C is incorrect because it assumes the theorist was presuming biological purposes, but the stimulus did not talk at all about biology.
D is incorrect because it, just like C, is concerned with biology.
E is incorrect because it introduces another concept not mentioned in the stimulus, rudimentary nervous system, and claims that the theorist presumed something on the basis of it.
D is the correct answer. D is correct because it introduces a key difference between the two groups not identified in the stimulus. The stimulus concludes that stretching before jogging does not prevent injuries because there are the same number of injuries between the group that habitually stretches and the group that doesn't. However, D weakens this hypothesis by showing that if the group that stretches did not stretch, that group would have incurred more injuries as a result. Hence, stretching does reduce injuries.
A is incorrect because it introduces a factor that equally applies to BOTH groups. If the factor applies to both groups, then any explanatory power is cancelled out, and thus the hypothesis drawn from the experiment (lack of difference between the two groups) is not weakened.
B is incorrect because it does not indicate any differences between the two groups. Those previously injured could equally have been from the group that habitually stretches and from the group that doesn't, and thus any difficulties would also apply equally.
C is incorrect because it strengthens the hypothesis by demonstrating why stretching has no effect on the number of injuries.
E is incorrect because it is concerned with the severity of injuries, not the number of injuries.
@KhushyMandania Although I agree with this in general, I feel like there is some confirmation bias here too. In this case, answer choice A is no less definitive in its wording than answer choice B. In fact, answer choice B utilizes "some" in its reference to digital circuits, whereas A simply refers to all digital circuits. Just something to take note of.
God I got this right but for the wrong reasons! I missed the "reject" part and was looking for one that would be accepted by the principle. I immediately eliminated the first four answer choices because they were obviously out of scope, and picked the right answer because I thought it conformed to the principle. Man.
C is correct because it explains why astronomers were able to see the increasing brightness without being able to see the comet actually breaking until a month later. The possible explanation becomes that the comet was indeed broken in September that allowed gas and dust to be emitted to generate brightness, but only until November was the comet broken enough to be visibly so.
A is incorrect because it would add another layer of inconsistency to the phenomenon: why did the astronomers see the brightness before gas and dust were emitted?
B is incorrect because it merely explains why gas and dust make the comet brighter; something that was not in question to begin with, nor does it explain why the breaking was not perceived until November.
D is incorrect because knowing that gas and dust was emitted in increasing amounts does not explain why the breaking was not perceived.
E is incorrect because it merely explains why the comet broke up; it doesn't address why astronomers only saw it break up one month after seeing the brightness increase.