Ignore your real world thoughts about how true a conclusion is and follow the logic!

A - m - > Pheromones

above 45 -> /Pheromones

Afternoon SD -> above 45

Afternoon SD - > /Pheromones

C. If in SD and foraging in afternoon (temp above 45) they do not use pheromones. Yep! Because they don't work.

EXEPTTTTTTTTTTTT OMG

Gen- m -> G

SC < - > G

G - All -> GL

—------------

GL - All - > G nope invalid

GL < - > / G nope invalid 

GL - m - > Gen nope invalid 

GL < - > SC …. SC <-> G -> GL therefore SC <-> GL Valid! :)

Some go both ways

All billionaires are people. Most people under the age of 50 do not have enough $ to retire.

Conclusion- Most billionaires under the age of 50 do not have enough money to retire.

ERRRRR... nope!

Struggling to find a good take-away from the question to help me in future with similar questions.

false dichotomy flaw:

If X won't do Y then the only other option is for K to do Y.

To strengthen this rule out that no other entity can to Y, meaning only K can do Y.

If the conclusion says ‘all X are Y because of Z’, a right answer choice would be: one X is not Y. 

Conclusion: Everyone that buys lottery tickets is wasting their money. Weaken it- One person won the lottery.

If the discrepancy is a cost benefit analysis situation and the stimulus is showing that for reasons X, Y, and Z, that A is better than B but B is actually what is happening or being used, the answer choice will highlight why B is better than A and its benefits out weigh X, Y, and Z. 

Ex: There are 2 law schools near me that I am interested in going to. School 1 is only a 10 minute drive from my house, it is prestigious, and students that graduate from this school have a 75% bar rate pass on their first attempt. School 2 is an hour away from my house and is not prestigious. I am going to go to School 2. Resolving the discrepancy: School 1 costs $250k total while School 2 costs $45k total and offers multiple scholarships.

If the conclusion says you must do X to solve Y because of Z, a good answer choice to weaken the conclusion would be Y is actually already being solved by K.

Ex: Y- the house is messy Z- a messy house makes me crazy X - I must clean the house K- the cleaning service is coming today to fully clean the house. 

If the stem is asking you to strengthen the argument,

K - you cannot afford a cleaning service.

This rules out an alternate solution to X strengthening the conclusion that I MUST clean the house.

Take away from this question:

If the conclusion says in order to solve a problem you MUST do something, a good way to weaken the argument is to find a way to counter their idea that it is necessary to solve the problem the way that they have concluded.

C takes away the necessity.

I image I'm having a conversation with my husband. He says that we need to save more money for future house projects. Therefore it is imperative that I quit getting Starbucks every morning.

Well a good way to weaken his conclusion is that I actually canceled a subscription worth more than what I spend per month on coffee. So it is actually not necessary for me to stop getting coffee every morning! :)

• Support for an argument / Strengthening an argument can come from eliminating other possible causes related to the phenomenon in surrounding unstudied populations 

  • Ex: In the study population that had X implemented, Y increased. Conclusion X increases Y

  • Support for this conclusion could be in similar populations that did not have X implemented Y decreased! This helps rule out the possibility that Y increasing is caused by a factor other than X.

Pattern: 

Some people think X because Y. This is mistaken because of Z. Z because of analogous K.

X is mistaken - conclusion

Z - premise (sometimes subconclusion) 

X - context

Y - context

K- premise for the premise or subconclusion

Key words:

premise - nearly always = sometimes but not often

C. /any chance = 0 % chance

E. unlikely = sometimes but not often

Loryn knew that she needed to bring her passport or her id to the airport. She brought her id. Therefore she did not bring her passport.

This is invalid! I could have brought both!

Loryn knew that she could only fit either her passport or her id in her wallet. She brought her id in her wallet. Therefore she did not bring her passport in her wallet.

This is valid!

You cannot go to law school unless you take the LSAT

Translation

If you do not take the LSAT, then you cannot go to law school

If go to law school then you took the LSAT.

Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates.

Translation:

If the heat wave does not abate then blackouts will occur!

Wrinkles will occur unless you get Botox.

Translation

If you do not get Botox, then you will get wrinkles!!

/ W -> B

If wrinkles did not occur as you age then you got Botox

/B -> W

If you don’t get botox, wrinkles will occur as you age

What it’s not saying:

if you got wrinkles then you did not get Botox. This is not true!! You can still get wrinkles even if you get Botox!

Chlamydiae can grow only where their host cells grow.

You can win the lottery only when you buy a ticket 

win -> buy ticket

ch grow -> host grow

/host grow -> /ch grow

Cruise ships make unscheduled stops only when the necessities of safety demand that such course of action is prudent.

you can win the lottery only when you buy a ticket 

win -> buy ticket

stop -> nec 

/nec -> /stop

Businesses do the environmentally “right” thing only if doing so makes good business sense.

The only way businesses do the environmentally right thing is if doing so makes $

do good environment -> $

/$ -> /do good environment

The only way to be counted as late is if you arrive 5 minutes late. This does not mean that arriving late guarantees that you will be counted late.

you will win the lottery only if you buy a lottery ticket.

I bought a lottery ticket.

Therefore, I won the lottery!

Invalid!!

Another way to word the premise could be:

The only way to win the lottery is to buy a lottery ticket.

If the real estate market is not crashing then zombies are not attacking.