@bubbledrop For me, I diagram the stimulus. And really understand the wording of the conclusion. After mapping A --> B --> C and seeing they concluded, it's not X but C that causes B

I moved onto trying to match conclusions.

A is a conditional conclusion not a causal statement, so it's wrong

B is looking good so keep it so far "not X but something else that causes"

C "most responsible" is not good enough. The stimulus says something is a cause, not mostly a cause

D another conditional conclusion and not a causal statement

E is halfway there. Something happened not because of X. Where's the rest of the conclusion?

Based on matching conclusions alone, B is the only one alive.

Looking closer: When snow --> more crashes --> careless

so it's not icy roads, but carelessness that causes the crashes. Matches beautifully

I redid this question in review and now I'm kinda mad I got this wrong. (I picked D). Rule #1 for a weaken/strengthen is you can't point to some people doing something to break a conclusion. Outliers for a general trend/recommendation doesn't break the support.

E is the obvious answer.

All this argument is saying is:

we don't have a definition, so we should just build a definition based on expert beliefs.

E is saying, well there may not even be any experts. This absolutely weakens because how can you recommend something that may not even exist?

I too got caught up with C. But it's obvious on review that the new concept in the conclusion is "healing". If I just use the search function to find the word "heal" in an AC, I only get B and D. B is making the wrong connection (heal --> /focusing on relationships). So D is what matches.

Oh the misery

@Chloe Peck-Sanders The stimulus talks about repressors and sensitizers in comparative terms. For AC E: if S more so than R focus on the difficulties, that would explain why they perform worse relative to repressors.

I'll be completely honest, I had no clue what this stimulus was saying and what it was comparing. I just tried to find the shape of the argument

demand is increasing for PCs, so you'd think profits would also be high for PCs (I just disregarded whatever "relative to total retail sales of personal computers" meant)

But the profits for PCs are very low compared to other high tech items.

A - points out something about why PCs would be lower, so helps

B - brand loyalty? this doesn't feel relevant

C - points out what makes PCs potentially more difficult vs other high tech - helps

D - explains why low prices for PCs, the PCs are the incentive not the source of profit for the retailer - helps

E - more difficult competition so PCs are difficult to sell - helps

gov -c-> prevention of injury

if reason approach, low need for gov

this must be because

reasoned approach -c-> prevention of injury. It's another way to get to the desired effect. C is great because it's mildly written as a correlation

@AksharaViruthagiri This question is unfortunately playing on your ability to distinguish between "a few" and "few". A few = some. Few = some but most are not

So a few people are funny means that some people are funny

Few people know how to dance means that some people know how to dance, but most do not

So this stimulus says: most children do not spend their free time reading stories

Therefore,

most children won't develop a lifelong interest in lit

Simply:

/read

therefore

/develop

We just need to say if /read --> /develop

or as B says: if develop --> read

Split passage method made some of these questions so much more straightforward than the sequential method would have. After combing through the questions and eliminating even one or two ACs that definitively weren't relevant to Passage A, I could narrow down to the right AC so much more easily.

A - UCH is not mentioned in Passage A

B - international conventions also not mentioned

C - archeological value vs commercial value (which is incidentally what's mentioned in Passage B too)

D - doesn't talk about private ownership, just contracting with a private company to restore government property (in Passage A)

E - there's nothing about in situ preservation in A: it just talks about recovery.

I literally drew myself a picture of this passage as I was reading. It made it so much easier to keep concepts straight.

The 12 on a clock must be the starting point of the circle. As time passes, the clock hand always returns to this origin point. So the 12 is the origin.

You can't just pick a point in a cycle, decide it's the origin and support that claim by saying, see? It always goes back to this point, so it's the origin.

D is a little tempting when it talks about order of events having some impact, but the argument never makes a causal statement. It just identifies an origin.

Conclusion says:

This conditional statement is false: appearance --> work of art

so if two things have the same appearance, they would both have the same outcome of being a work of art.

But we have an example of same appearance, different outcome. So it must be that the conditional is not true.

E says: if the conditional were true, the example given would be impossible, so the conditional must be false.

The way I chose E over everything else is by focusing on the language of the conclusion. It very clearly says: this general conditional is false. And the preceding sentences of the stimulus are obviously an example or a specific case. D is wrong because it's not questioning any assumptions, it's using an example to state that a conditional is false.

A is also wrong because the speaker doesn't highlight differences between what's believed and what is true. They highlight that two things have the same property, but are determined to be two different things.

This one was straightforward for me because I just mapped out the conclusion

+snow -c-> cooler atmosphere

how do we strengthen? cause and effect rules.

C shows /cause, (-) effect

put another way, if we claim: studying causes someone to pass an exam

showing that no studying causes failure strengthens that conclusion.

S-B says the inscriptions describe villagers' contributions to the temple.

AC B questions that by saying the inscriptions are basically billing statements.

Idk why I couldn't understand what A was saying in timed conditions. All it's saying is that one token represented multiple objects....

B is unsupported because we don't know what temples preferred as contributions. We just know what was contributed.

D has a similar problem, who knows what was most important?

E is also unsupported the tokens had some abstraction, but was it just as abstract as the written language? Not likely

C is the only one left and understanding why it's right takes understanding that "figurative" tokens meant they were more pictographic than abstract to represent the intended object.

@PaytonSummers It seems like this whole section had a causal reasoning theme.

This businessperson is claiming:

Parking lot closure caused lateness on this particular day

because parking lot closed -c-> hard to find parking -c-> lateness

This is a single case, and if we want to believe him, we have to evaluate whether this actually is the cause of the lateness

One way we can do that is to take away the cause, do we still have the same problem? So we check what things are like on any other day when the lot is open.

say the parking lot is open (so lack of cause) do we still see the effect? (difficult to find parking)

If yes, then the parking lot being closed had nothing to do with the person being late. So the conclusion is wrong.

If no, then parking lot open -c-> easy to find parking so likely wouldn't have been late. The businessperson claiming the parking lot closure caused his lateness would be acceptable.

@linyang55 What A does is eliminate an alternate cause.

The stimulus says because high iron in diet correlates with Parkinson's, and concludes: limiting iron intake in diet will cause a reduction in chances of contracting Parkinson's.

A rules out that if you have a genetic cause for Parkinson's, that doesn't make you more likely to consume a high amount iron. It's basically saying Parkinson's doesn't cause the high iron intake. Makes it less likely that the causal arrow goes the other way.

Author says diet -c-> Parkinson's

AC A says Parkinson's -/c-> diet

@Saul goodman Hmm saying something is a problem is not the same as saying a specific solution should be implemented.

E is highlighting that they agree that NP awarded does not reflect accurately who contributes to the results.

So they agree that the way the prize is awarded currently is inaccurate. But they have no opinion about whether this should be changed or not.

We have to adopt this naturalist's wacky mindset to get this question right. It's purely logic and the content is just wrong.

All we know is chimps examined a screwdriver, played with it, then moved on.

Orangutans pretend to ignore then try to use the tool when no one's looking

The attractive ACs are C and E.

C says: some are capable of deception (at least one)

E says: not all (not 100%) understand tool use

E feels instinctually right because that's just likely to be true in the world. But based on these two examples, we cannot necessarily rule this out.

Based on behavior alone we cannot deny that this ability to understand tool use is universal for all non primates. The possibility still exists.

AC C is the only LOGICAL correct answer, but the naturalist is obviously anthropomorphizing this orangutan behavior by assuming they were "pretending to ignore" in the first place. We just have to go along with this absurdity.

E is wrong also because of the inherent conditional for a behavior.

If act --> have the capacity to act

so if we show a lack of action, that doesn't mean the capacity doesn't exist.

C is showing the opposite where the stimulus provides the absurdity of "acting deceptive" which logically leads to the capacity to deceive.

@logically lost The stimulus is laying out a general conditional principle: if you should do something --> you can always do it. The argument is saying this is not always the case (we show a conditional is not always true by saying even if you should do it, sometimes you can't).

Basically to show that A-->B is not always true, we need to show A <-s->/B: at least one example where A happens but B does not.

So to do that, the speaker is trying to give us that example. If you promise to do something but you can't do it, that's an example of of something you should do that you cannot do.

The assumption is that something promised is the same as something you should do.

D says that if you promise to do something, the obligation still exists regardless of unforeseen circumstances. So if promise --> should still do it

And in that case, promise --> should do it, but can't = example of being obligated to do something but being unable to do it.

Maybe it's easier to see what D says by negating: if you promise to do something but you can't keep the promise, then the obligation is relieved. Aka if promise + unforeseen circumstance --> shouldn't have to

Negated, it means this is no longer an example of should do something but cannot do it.

@srosechampion The conclusion is a "some" statement, which is an inference inherent to a most statement.

The stimulus says:

Wednesday --m-> K buys GJ ---> Local HFS

therefore:

Wednesday <-s-> Local HFS

We know that the inference from the premise statements is Wednesday -m-> Local HFS but that statement inherently includes a some statement. Most is >50 which is is a number that's at least 1 by definition.

@JackSykes The conclusion says that if you get rid of this one aspect of counterfeiting, you'll prevent the whole practice. That must mean that that is the only thing that makes something a high quality counterfeit.

It's essentially saying every other part of copying is irrelevant

if high quality counterfeit --> accurate measurements.

If you prevent accurate measurements --> you have no other way of creating a high quality counterfeit.

Realistically, if you close just one path to a goal, there are likely other ways you can still achieve that goal. AC B is saying, actually no, the only way to get to the goal is by taking accurate measurements. So if you close off that path, you PREVENT the production of counterfeits entirely.

AC B is basically clarifying that first sentence in the stimulus, it's not the creating high quality counterfeits INVOLVE making accurate measurements, it's that the only way to make a high quality counterfeit is to make accurate measurements.

Idk if that answered your question, but the wording of AC B is saying that this one aspect is the only thing that matters, "no further impediments" exist to get to the goal of creating a counterfeit.

I can sit here and break down the logic of all the ACs and get to the right answer after doing some grammar parsing.

I'm here to offer people a shortcut because I could not understand how tf you're supposed to get this quickly in timed conditions.

Stimulus gives us some facts about the bill:

most people favor

does not violate basic human rights

will not be passed ever nor anything similar

bill would adversely affect very influential people

Therefore:

this is not a functioning democracy

Ok we've got this from the stimulus, now we play a matching game.

A: by the time we read "benefit most people" eliminate, this is not part of our listed facts

B: opposed by influential, eliminate, not part of facts

C: WFD + bill favored by most --> (become law --> not influential)

to make second conditional false, need become law + influential but we know it will not become law, so the NC is not failed to contrapose, eliminate

D: if bill passed + WFD --> favored by most + consistent with human rights

we only reaffirm the NCs with our facts so this is wrong

E: if most favor + WFD --> (if /violate --> will pass)

we have /violate + /will pass so the NC is negated and we get --> either /most favor OR /WFD which is the right target

@PriYanksya You know what, I just realized that we don't even need to translate the false conclusions/premises because the whole thing is one argument where at the end, the speaker just says, this whole thing is wrong. So we could just work within the "untrue" realm.

if write for pleasure --> /true

because

if popular --> gives pleasure --> /true

missing connection is write for pleasure and actually gives pleasure.

This feels like when you realize you could have simplified everything inside the parentheses BEFORE you do the final operation. Gonna go cry now

PLEASE READ MY REPLY BELOW. The video explanations helped a ton with helping me understand what I was missing here. The key to doing this question correctly with FULL understanding (which I certainly did not have in timed conditions; I got this right on pure vibes) is to be able to quickly translate exactly what a false conditional is into shorthand. I'm leaving this here from my notes for those who need to understand this more algebraically rather than conceptually.

Statement 1 is that people say:

if write for pleasure --> /true.

The conclusion is that this is false

In shorthand that means:

if write for pleasure --> true

The support for this argument kind of makes you rely on understanding the tone of the language used. If the original conditional were true, it would lead to something that's obviously wrong as well.

So for the first premise sentence, if the conditional is true, then we could look at sales figures to determine truth. On first read through I have no idea what this sentence is here for. But we're dealing with conditionals, and this is so far not a conditional statement, so I'm just ignoring this for now. Then we have:

If popular --> book gave people pleasure --> /true

This is the absurd statement that the author is implying is false. So by the same translation rules for the conclusion we can say:

if popular --> book gave people pleasure --> true

Original conditional is wrong, and its consequences are wrong. So it must be the negation is right because the negation of the consequences are what makes sense.

Ok great, we can work with these now!

Premise:

if popular --> book gave people pleasure --> true

Conclusion: written for pleasure --> true

P: X --> Y --> Z

C: W--> Z

necessary assumption is: Y--> W

We need "written for pleasure" to be somewhere in that premise conditional chain to be a necessary assumption. Because it leads to "true", it must be:

book gave people pleasure --> written for pleasure

We can also see at this point that the sales figures thing is completely irrelevant. It's farther up the conditional chain from what's relevant in the conclusion.

The only ACs that talk about these two concepts are B and D

AC B says: if write for pleasure --> may not give pleasure; this doesn't match the identified NA - it goes the wrong direction and has "may not necessarily" which is wrong.

AC D says: if gives pleasure --> intended to give pleasure

Perfect!