A is correct because the phrase is used in the context of the claim that instructions to juries to ignore information learned outside the courtroom cannot be relied upon. This implies that juries do not ignore information learned outside trial, and thus their deliberations will not consist solely of what they learn in trial. Thus, the critic's characterization of the judges' instructions as "beyond anyone's power to execute" implies that jurors "cannot be expected deliberate only on what they learn in a trial and not on what they knew beforehand."

B is incorrect because the critic never suggests that jurors would ever conflate facts of the case with speculations; rather, the critic is more concerned with the biases jurors may incur from exposure to the case details in mass media. Having biases does not equal failure to distinguish facts from speculations.

C is incorrect because the issue pointed out by the critic with the judges' instructions is not that jurors will have an opinion before trial, but that the jurors will not be able to rid of that opinion in trial. The fact that jurors cannot be expected to hear about a case before trial without forming an opinion would not be a problem if the judges' instructions produce their desired effect. However, the critic implies that this is impossible; that jurors do not end up ignoring information learned outside the courtroom.

D is incorrect because the ability of jurors to identify the degree of prior knowledge they have about a case is completely irrelevant to the critic's assertion. The critic is concerned about the effects of the knowledge itself on the impartiality of the jurors; their knowledge of the degree of knowledge they have is just a word salad.

E is incorrect because the judges' instructions to the jurors are not that they protect themselves from widely disseminated pretrial publicity; by the time the jurors reach the trial, they have already been exposed to the publicity. It makes no sense for the judges to instruct a juror to undo an event of the past, and so the critic is not refuting this point that was never made.

D is correct. This question hinges on your ability to infer that the concepts "constant awareness of the fragility and precariousness of human life" and "perpetually cognizant of the fragility and precariousness of human life" are mutually exclusive and exhaustive conditions; a person must inhabit one of them and cannot inhabit both.

With this in mind, we know that one either has a mind clouded by illusion or a tainted outlook on existence. (As opposed to the earlier duality, it is not explicit here that one precludes the other, but the question doesn't hinge on this ambiguity.) As a result, can logically infer that if a person has an untainted outlook on existence, then that person is not perpetually cognizant of the fragility and precariousness of human life and thus has a mind clouded by illusion.

A is incorrect because we are not given any conditions that will allow us to conclude that a person is "completely unaware of the fragility and precariousness of human life." All we are given regarding any type of awareness is what they would allow us to conclude.

B is incorrect because nothing in Sonya's statements suggests that there cannot be some people who live without constant awareness of the fragility and precariousness of human life, and thus have a mind clouded by illusion, and some people who are perpetually cognizant of the fragility and precariousness of human life, and thus have a tainted emotional outlook on existence.

C is incorrect because, although it is true that it is impossible for anyone to live without a mind clouded by illusion or a tainted outlook on existence, these do not all fall into the term "self-deception." A tainted emotional outlook on existence refers to a person's emotions, which is different from a person's internal reasoning, whereas self-deception does involve internal reasoning.

E is incorrect because nothing in Sonya's statements suggest what is better. There is no normative claim in her statements, so we cannot infer a normative statement out of them.

For me, the main value I derive from taking notes on questions lies in the act of taking the notes. I do not review them, but I do share them in the discussions tab and respond to any comments about them!

I find the lightweight notes tab to be adequate for my study needs, although I can see why other students might want more functionality.

@MateoAgudelo While I agree that the assumption you are describing would be a stretch, it's not quite the assumption that AC E is making.

AC E actually suggests that, despite an ad costing more to run per unit of time, more people will be exposed to them. That means that the increased cost is accompanied by increased exposure of the ad, and the main point of TV ads is for them to be seen by those who watch TV.

E is correct. The information in the stimulus can be organized as:

1. Pain perception depends only partly on physiology.

2. A lower percentage of injured soldiers requested morphine than did post-surgery civilians.

3. The soldier's response to injury was joy; to the civilians, surgery was a depressing event.

4. Thus, meaning one attaches to a wound can affect the amount of pain one perceives.

As can be seen from the simplified components of the argument, points #2 and #3 support point #4, which ultimately supports point #1, making point #1 the main conclusion and point #4 a subsidiary conclusion.

A is incorrect because the claim in question is explicitly stated in the argument, so it cannot be an assumption.

B is incorrect because the statement is completely consistent with all of the information in the stimulus and what they build up to; there is nothing undermining about the statement.

C is incorrect because the argument does not attempt to discredit any position. AC C would be correct if in the argument there is the phrase "It is not the case that pain perception depends only on physiology."

D is incorrect because the argument does not take the claim for granted; all of the statements made after it are structured to support it.

A is correct because it is a situation where a person, Fred, had a genuine emotional response, fear, to what he knew to be fictional, make-believe monsters. Additionally, Fred, believed that he would not be bothered by the fictional monsters, which is consistent with the claim that "people believe that they can be genuinely moved only by those things and events that they believe to be actual."

B is incorrect because Tamara did not have any genuine emotional responses. Making statements such as "Hamlet was born in Denmark" and "Hamlet was a prince" do not imply any emotions from Tamara.

C is incorrect because Raheem's emotional response was induced by what he believed to be an actual event. Even though the event turned out to be false, Raheem's emotional response was nonetheless a response to an event believed to be actual.

D is incorrect because Jemery's emotional response was not to a thing or event that he knows to be fictional; considering an account unlikely to be accurate is different from knowing the account to be fictional.

E is incorrect because the difficulty in maintaining interest is not the same as having an emotional response. In fact, it is quite the opposite: the lack of emotional response. Even if we were to grant that indifference can be considered an emotional response, Sandy does not experience this in response to a thing or event she knows to be fictional.

D is correct because it lessens the extent to which we would expect Activite to have to sacrifice in making the offer. The author's conclusion rests on the assumption that the company would experience a net loss by making the offer unless the supplement is effective enough to elicit purchases from those receiving the offer. However, there are other ways so that the company does not necessarily experience a net loss, despite the supplement being ineffective. AC D points out that it might not be expensive at all for the company in implementing the promotion, even if it doesn't result in many purchases.

A is incorrect because the author never argues that Activite is the only way to achieve its purported results. The author simply argues that the supplement is effective, and the benefits of a well-balanced diet have no bearing the effectiveness of Activite.

B is incorrect because the author never attempts to argue that Activite is cheaper or better than any other supplement. The argument is to conclude that Activite is effective on the basis of the company's act of offering a free month's supply of it. The existence of cheaper supplements on the market does not give us any reason to believe the supplement is not actually effective.

C is incorrect because, for one, it refers to what is the case for most dietary supplements; we do not know if this applies to Activite. For another, even if it does apply to Activite, the author does not rely on the supplement to be fully effective within one month in his reasoning; he just needs it to be the case that the supplement shows some effectiveness for his assumption regarding the subsequent purchases to hold.

E is incorrect because the author never attempts to argue that the supplement has no harmful side effects; a supplement can be very effective despite having harmful side effects. Additionally, even if the author argues that there are no side effects, his argument does not rest solely on the supplement's natural ingredients, but on the decision of the company to offer the free supplies, so AC E's use of "the mere fact" would be inaccurate; the author uses other facts too.

@TharcilleTuyisenge Hello! We haven't really studied together yet, at least not as a group!

C is correct because it strengthens the assumption required by the argument; that the carving of Parthenon's columns utilized scale drawings. If instead scale drawings were rarely used in construction in ancient Greece, then it becomes less plausible to make leap from observing a scale drawing of a column in Didyma, which was not established to be for construction, to concluding that such drawings were utilized in Parthenon for construction.

A is incorrect because the inability to recreate the columns nowadays is irrelevant to the argument about whether scale drawings aided the construction of the columns in Parthenon. If anything, AC A may weaken the argument because if ancient Greece were able to build the columns in Parthenon through scale drawings, we would expect to be able to do the same now.

B is incorrect because it is irrelevant; the author does not rely on the chronology of the etched drawing and the construction of Parthenon's columns. Instead, the specific drawing is merely cited as an example of the ancient Greeks' creating (and therefore utilizing) such drawings, not that the columns replied on that specific drawing. Additionally, if anything AC B weakens the argument by suggesting that it is possible that the ancient Greeks probably haven't learned to make such drawings until a century after building the columns in Parthenon, meaning the columns were likely built without such drawings.

D is incorrect because the columns at Didyma are completely irrelevant to the argument. The author never claims that the drawings found in Didyma were used to construct its columns, hence whatever characteristics its columns have have no bearing on whether such drawings were used in the construction of Parthenon's columns.

E is incorrect because the experience of Parthenon's stonemasons before they started work on the Parthenon is irrelevant to whether they utilized scale drawings in their work. Nothing in the argument implies that using scale drawings requires the stonemasons to have considerable experience. Of course, it makes sense to assume that considerable experience would be required to achieve the uniform bulge across all columns, but that applies to stonemasons using or not using scale drawings alike.

C is correct because many land animals were depicted does nothing to explain why there were no sea animals depicted. The theory the author attempts to refute is that the cave paintings largely described the diets of the painters at the time of the paintings. We are told that "the painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway if they were to make the long journey to and from the islands." Hence, in order to weaken the author's argument/strengthen the theory, we need to find an explanation that both upholds the theory and the fact that sea animals are not depicted in the paintings.

A is incorrect because it suggests that, when on the islands, the painters did not necessarily consume sea animals because they hunted and ate land animals. Therefore, the absence of sea animals in the paintings may simply reflect an absence of sea animals in the painters' diets.

B is incorrect because it suggests that the painters may have indeed depicted sea animals in their paintings, but those parts of the paintings deteriorated throughout the centuries.

D is incorrect because it suggests that those who made the long journey to and from the islands might have been able to sustain themselves with preserved meats from one location, instead of catching sea animals along the route. It basically refutes the author's assumption that the painters "needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway."

E is incorrect because it refutes the author's assumption that the paintings were done by painters who had to "make the long journey to and from the islands"; what if the painters actually lived and stayed on the islands without travelling between them?

@AidenMagley I would go with that "single sitting" interpretation.

@SK130 The goal of a RRE question is to find an explanation that, if true, allows the facts in the stimulus to not contradict one another. In the case of AC B, we can construct a hypotheitcal to demonstrate how it allows both regional averages to increase while still decreasing the national average:

Let's say a country is composed of regions R1 and R2. Before last year, the average wages in R1 and R2 were $20/hour and $50/hour, respectively, and the average wage for the country as a whole was $35/hour. Last year, the average wages in R1 and R2 increased to $25/hour and $55/hour, respectively, but the average wage for the country decreased to only $30. This decrease in the national average seems strange because all of its regions increased their average wages. However, what if the number of jobs in R1 increased substantially last year? If that is the case, then the national average will be pulled closer to the average of R1, which is lower than the original national average, despite R1's average increasing ($25 < $30).

I made an illustration below:

C is correct because the farmer concludes that his pesticides are not spreading to his neighbor's farm in runoff water solely on the basis that there is no evidence that his pesticides are harmful and that he is careful to avoid spraying his neighbor's land.

For one, the purported harmlessness of the pesticides have nothing to do with whether they are indeed spreading to his neighbor's farm. For another, whether or not his neighbor's land ended up being sprayed is irrelevant, as his conclusion is that the pesticides are not spreading to her land through runoff water; we have no reason to believe that it is not the case.

A is incorrect because the farmer never claims that the lack of evidence that his pesticides cause harm is proof that they cannot do so; instead, the claim is meant to support his conclusion that his neighbor's claim (regarding pesticides spreading to her farm through runoff water) is wrong.

B is incorrect because, although the farmer does presume that his carefulness to avoid spraying his neighbor's land successfully resulted in its avoidance, this is a surface-level weakness that does not address the main flaw that spray alone does not address runoff water.

D is incorrect because it is not a flaw to fail to provide an alternative explanation when concluding that an explanation is false. One can sufficiently show that an explanation is false by presenting contradicting evidence. Presenting an alternative explanation can help weaken a given explanation, but it is not necessary to prove it false.

E is incorrect for the same reason AC B is incorrect; it points out an assumption made by the farmer when he establishes his premises to support his conclusion. However, this assumption is a surface-level weakness that does not address the more egregious structural flaw: his premises are completely irrelevant to his conclusion.

@ChelsiSmith That is correct! Usually (but not always), MMS questions will have a stimulus that simply describes a bunch of facts, and it is our job to figure out which inference in the answer choices is most strongly supported by those facts.

E is correct because it is established that intensive pasteurization eliminates bacteria more effectively than does any other method, and McElligott's apple juice was flash pasteurized. Of course, AC E is not an airtight inference, as we do not know the baseline level of the bacteria in McElligott's apple juice in comparison to the baseline level for the said apple juice that undergoes intensive pasteurization. However, it is okay because this is a most strongly supported question, and the rest of the answers have no support at all. Additionally, although we do not have the baseline level for McElligott's apple juice, we have reason to believe it was high enough to cause bacterial infections.

A is incorrect because we know nothing about the citrus juices by other companies. The only thing about citrus juices we know about McElligott's citrus juices is that they have not been linked to any bacterial infections; this doesn't mean that they do not contain any bacteria. And even if they don't, we have no reason to believe other companies' citrus juices also do not contain any bacteria.

B is incorrect because the author tells us nothing about the comparative level of bacteria in McElligott's apple juice and citrus juices. We cannot infer that just because his apple juice was pasteurized and his citrus juices were not that one contains more bacteria than the other. Again, we are not given baseline levels of bacteria to make this judgement; what if McElligott's apple juice had ten times the amount of bacteria in his citrus juices, and after pasteurization, the level drops to 5 times the amount?

C is incorrect because the only link we are given between pasteurization and flavor loss is that intensive pasteurization likely destroys flavor; we cannot generalize this to all methods of pasteurization. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that because McElligott's citrus juices were unpasteurized, they retain more flavor than any pasteurized citrus juices. If "any pasteurized citrus juices" were replaced with "citrus juices pasteurized by intensive pasteurization," then AC C would be supported.

D is incorrect because, although we are told that the most effective method for eliminating bacteria also likely destroys flavor, we are not told that that method is the most likely to destroy flavor. For what we are told, it is possible that flash pasteurization tends to destroy even more flavor than does intensive pasteurization.

D is correct because it explicitly states that the studies with the older children were carried out in a way that would not provide significant support any conclusion regarding a causal relationship between night-lights and nearsightedness.

The conclusion drawn by the doctor is precisely a causal relationship between night-lights and nearsightedness. Since AC D would mean that she could no longer use the two later studies, her argument must be supported only by the first study, which is obviously insufficient for the conclusion she draws.

A is incorrect because the doctor never argues that night-lights do cause near-sightedness; rather, her conclusion is that if night-lights cause nearsightedness, the effect disappears with age. Essentially, her conclusion is the effect of age on the impact of night-lights, if there exists an impact.

B is incorrect because is neglects the main point of the doctor; that the impact of night-lights, if any, disappears with age. AC B simply gives us reason to believe that the correlation observed in the first study might actually be a causal relationship (by ruling out an alternative explanation to the contrary), but it does nothing to weaken the causal link between night-light-induced nearsightedness and age.

C is incorrect because it is consistent with the doctor's conclusion. If those children in AC C only began sleeping with night-lights after getting older, then the fact that they did not develop nearsightedness appears to support the doctor's hypothesis that the effects of night-lights (if any) disappear with age.

E is incorrect because it is consistent with the conclusion drawn by the doctor. Firstly, a fact about "several" children among the 100 is unlikely to lead to any useful inferences. Secondly, even if the "several" were replaced with "most," AC E is claiming that this subgroup had slept with night-lights as infants, so their nearsightedness could very well have developed when they were infants.

In order for AC E to weaken, it would have to be: "In a fourth study involving 100 children who were older than those in any of the first three studies, most of the children who started around that their age to sleep with night-lights were nearsighted."

@missmads Based on what we are given by the premises, we can't assume that the 60 problems were in fact chosen. It is possible the 60 were all of the problems identified from the sample, which could have been representative.

B is correct because the therapist fails to consider the possibility that most people are afflicted with one of the problems that did not clear up within 50 weeks of therapy. Perhaps the 75% of the 60 problems that cleared up within 50 weeks are also the rarest problems in the general population.

A is incorrect because the therapist never assumes that the 60 problems cover all psychological problems; the fact that it was a large, diverse sample gives us reason to believe the problems covered were roughly representative. The existence of other problems that take longer to clear up than the problems studied does not affect the argument because the conclusion is the number of sessions most people need.

C is incorrect because the therapist never assumes that everyone suffers from at most one of the problems; the fact remains that 75% of the problems involved in the study consistently cleared up within 50 weeks. In order for AC C to weaken, we would have to assume that most people who suffer from more than one psychological problem suffers from one that is not among the 75% specified in the study. This assumption about most people is unwarranted, and AC B calls out that assumption.

D is incorrect because the therapist never claims that all forms of therapy work equally; the conclusion is concerned with behavioral therapy alone.

E is incorrect because the number of psychological problems per participant is irrelevant to the therapist's argument; the premises revolve solely around the actual problems and the rates they are cured. His conclusion is not drawn from the fact that 75% of the participants were cured, but from the fact that 75% of the problems were cured. Additionally, even if the study claimed that 75% of the participants were cured, AC E pulls in the wrong direction; it gives us more reason to believe that 50 therapy sessions would be sufficient for most of the population because they were sufficient for a sample with above-average numbers of psychological problems.

@kristengraves24488 Yes :)

@MiguelFurt

theres nothing to state that the point in their lifecycle is after theyve been attatched to the stingray.

I don't think you are meant to interpret it that way to begin with. I didn't interpret it that way. AC A reconciles the discrepancy by showing that if the parasites are present (regardless of whether they are attached to the stingrays), it indicates the presence of those environmentally vulnerable organisms.

C is correct. The premises can only tell us that, because more people regularly use household products than regularly use medicine, more people are potentially at risk due to household products than medicine. However, the author instead concludes that it is more important for such household products to be carefully tested than it is for medicines. The gap is between that of posing a risk and that of the importance of testing. AC C bridges this gap.

A is incorrect because the argument does not depend on what mainly contributes to the importance of testing a given product; instead, the argument claims that the more of a certain attribute, the more it is important to test the product. It is possible that the attribute is one of the least significant factors in affecting the importance of testing a given product, but it doesn't mean that increasing that attribute would therefore not increase the importance of testing that product.

B is incorrect because this principle would apply equally to household products and medicines; we are given no indicators on which products are regularly used by large numbers of people, and which are not. Additionally, even if we grant that a large number of people regularly use household products whereas not a large number regularly use medicines, the principle still does not tell us that it is not very important to test those products that are not regularly used by large numbers of people.

D is incorrect because it is concerned only with comparing one subset of medicines to another and does not interact at all with the distinction made in the conclusion.

E is incorrect because it can only tell us when it is more important for medicines to be tested and does not allow us to conclude when it is more important for household products to be tested.

D is correct. Erin claims that thousands of lives would be saved by the proposed regulations to reduce PAHs by automobile exhaust because PAHs are responsible for over 10,000 premature deaths (of course, this also assumes the scientists were right). However, she fails to consider the possibility that only a small minority of PAHs released are due to automobile exhaust; the regulations will only target this subset of PAHs, and if this subset is insignificantly small, then the conclusion that thousands of lives will be saved becomes dubious.

A is incorrect because Erin is merely concluding what would be the case if the proposed regulations were enacted; the sentiment of automobile manufacturers is irrelevant. In order for AC A to weaken her argument, we would have to assume that these manufacturers will fail to comply with the regulations once enacted. However, AC A does not indicate this, so we cannot make this assumption.

B is incorrect because the lack of evidence that other diseases are also caused by PAHs does not change the fact that 10,000 premature deaths are caused by PAHs.

C is incorrect because Erin never claims that the proposed regulations are the only way to save thousands of lives. Even if PAHs will decrease without the new regulations, the new regulations can still decrease them even further and save lives. Additionally, AC C refers to if automobile usage declines; we have no reason to believe that they will.

E is incorrect because the lives that Erin argues will be saved are those that involve PAHs interacting with lung and heart disease; cancer is not one of the issues her argument relies on. Additionally, even if AC E were to replace cancer with lung and heart disease, it still doesn't hurt her argument, as the existence of other causal components do not render PAHs no longer causal components.

E is correct because the premises only establish that exceptional service is one way that small retailers can retain their customer base without lowering prices; they do not establish that it is the only way. AC E points this out; what if small retailers that are forced to compete with large discount chains can retain their level of profitability by doubling working hours and halving wages?

A is incorrect because the argument is only referring to how small retailers can maintain their profits and is unconcerned with whether large discount chains do or do not make a profit. AC A is baiting you to assume that if a large discount chain does not make a profit, then small retailers will not need to compete with it and so could retain their level of profitability without doing anything. However, this assumption is unwarranted: even if a large discount chain does not make a profit, this does not mean that it does not still compete with small retailers.

Additionally, even if we grant that the large discount chain does not compete with the small retail chains, this case will then fall out of the domain of the argument, as the argument is only concerned with cases where small retailers "are forced to compete with large discount chains."

B is incorrect because, as described for AC A, the actual profit margins of large discount chains are irrelevant to the argument on what is required for small retail chains to maintain their level of profitability. The notion that those large discount chains might not pose any competition to the small retail chains, again, does not hurt the argument because the argument is confined to those cases where small retail stores are forced to compete.

C is incorrect because the argument is only concerned with what a small retail chain must do if it is to retain their level of profitability. For those that do not care if their level of profitability goes down, the argument would not apply.

D is incorrect because the argument only applies to those small retail chains that are forced to compete with large discount chains; those that are not forced to do so are irrelevant to the argument.

If you are torn between C and E, know that if E is correct, then C must also be correct, as an intermediate conclusion in an argument is always a premise of the argument. Therefore, because there cannot be two right answers, it has to be C.

The idea of "no two right answers" can also be applied to other questions and help you eliminate answer choices that entail the truth of other answer choices.