I thought (B) is saying the propensity results in the thief's ignoring of the alarm, like the thief (who perform thefts everyday and take such activities as normal life) observed the propensity and take the alarm ring as something normal, yet it sounds to other people something cautionary. So the thief who drives the car doesn't notice the alarm while the people passing by noticed, and the thief then being found out and convicted...

Totally wrong understanding of the words.

I'm sorry English is not my first language, to my understanding, a person can observe something is totally different from a person to respect that thing. I think if C is correct, the logic is: since the great authors are less respectful, idiosyncratic, and innovative, they are not "as likely as most other people to observe proper language usage". (stimulus supports answer)

If this logic holds true, then the counterpart would be: if the great authors can observe proper language usage as most other people, then they are not less respectful, or not idiosyncratic, or not innovative.

However, what if many great authors just observe the usage and choose to be not respectful to it at all, while still being idiosyncratic and innovative. I think the stimulus just doesn't guarantee the answer choice. But I don't know whether it's my misunderstanding of the term, since my understanding of the word "observe" just doesn't lead to respect.

If the conclusion changed to:

Therefore, more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should NOT resign if NOT convicted.

Will this be free of flaw?

One interesting finding about "only" and "the only" after question 3:

If it is written as "The only myths that survived are written down." It means "if the myth is survived, then it is written down", or "if the myth is not written down, then it is not survived".

However, if it is written as "Only myths that survived are written down." It means "if the myth is written down, then it is survived", or "if the myth is not survived, it is not written down.

I got this question right simply because I struggle between (A), (B), and (D), but can't find any difference between (A) and (B), and certainly there can't be two right answers, so I chose (D).

But after watching the video, I think the reason why (A) and (B) are incorrect is that they confuse sufficiency with necessity (this I think is an alternative explanation to this question but it could be wrong).

What in the passage indicates that the drama is proof of the emergence of individual role, in other words, the drama is one of the many sufficient conditions for the emergence to happen, other sufficient conditions may also trigger it to happen. But what in the two answer choices is that the drama initiate/introduce the new understanding of individual role, meaning that without the drama, the new understanding cannot be initiated/introduced, which is exactly what a necessary condition is.

I thought the first sentence is a principle, second sentence supporting the first principle (cannot be anonymously because driven by personal interaction), and the third sentence is an application of the previous principle (not strictly an application but is a more concrete version of the principle).

So, please let me know if this generalization is true: Whenever there is an abstract principle and a more concrete illustration of that principle, the principle is the conclusion or at least the intermediate conclusion supported by the illustration, not the other way around.

is it okay to conflate brick house and house? I translate this stimulus as:

domain: has front yard

premise: All brick house are house (All A are B)

Most house have two stories (Most B are C)

Therefore, Most brick house have two stories (Most A are C)

can anyone explain if the newspaper subscriber's conclusion swapped to: "But there is at least one alternative hypothesis/explanation to Arnot's argument."

Will that still be making (A) correct?

honestly this question made me having more understanding of why this exam is named "law school admission test"... play on words

I feel like I'm always better at dealing with these abstract questions than with the concrete weakening questions, even though they are just the same question with different phrases.

Can I interpret the answer choice (B) as: if there are other conditions necessary for [evolved life -> presence of liquid water] (premise), then the argument that [presence of liquid water -> evolved primitive life] (the flawed conclusion) collapses? But still, I'm confused with how this explanation equivalent to [mistaking necessity for sufficiency]? Can anyone explain to me please?

I initially went for B, but I thought that it is possible for Ace. acid to reduce the production of all other immune cells except microglia, because the stimulus only indicates that microglia is "the brain's own immune cells", not "the brain's ONLY immune cells". So I thought (B) would be a trap answer. Like bruh I'm so foreign to these words and thought that microglia is a specific term denotes to one particular type of cell, so it can be that all other immune cells being reduced and this cell remains the same, yet it's actually a general term.