SA, and we have an unlinked new concept in the conclusion! woohoo. We have to have an assumption that links to this, because it is dangling.

That allows us to eliminate C and E.

Looking back at the premises, I am really just seeing ONE idea, and then two pieces of context or related information to that one point -- FEW children today spend their time reading stories.

So, to link the premise to the conclusion....

reading stories is NECESSARY for the lifelong interest.

lifelong interest --> reading stories.

This is AC B!

The stim is saying that the WRONG way to understand what advertisers do is to CAUSE DESIRE. But the RIGHT way to understand what advertisers do is RECOGNIZE that people want to SATISFY their desires, and take advantage of this.

So, what advertisers do is EXPLOIT existing desires, they do not CAUSE them.

In a way, this is also sort of a method of reasoning question? It requires basically choosing an AC that is a high level description of the argument.

There is a DEBATE depicted, and its an MSS question. So basically I need to find what the two sides of the debate would agree on, or an answer that clearly states that one or the other side believes something.

A - HIGHLY controversial? It could just be ONE person. and is it the WORK or its CATEGORIZATION thats the point at issue.

B - We can't support this.

C - We can support this. I think both sides would agree on this. The point at issue is whether or not it can be CLASSIFIED ITSELF as modernist.

D - this is picking a side, not pulling out an MSS.

E - This is also picking a side.

MSS, so it is just the world of the stim that exists. We only get a few words from the critic. We have no idea what Waverly actually thinks or intended. We are fully in the world of this critic's few words.

A - we don't know what she believes.

B - the critic says something about works that Waverly feels indifferent about. I don't like this answer.

C - we don't know her intentions

D - This can be supported.

E - We don't know what she believes.

If I am between B and D, I need to choose D, even if I don't totally see it or understand it. B says that she has ONLY included works that she has STRONG opinions about. This doesn't work for a few reasons. I don't like ONLY in an MSS. The critic tells us that Waverly is writing about pieces she feels indifferent about. And, Waverly's quote tells us that she is ATTEMPTING to be objective, so there is some reason to believe she would include a survey of art history, not just what she really feels strongly about.

This is an MSS that REALLY requires you to ONLY exist in the world of the stem.

A - SOMETIMES a way to TRY to solve. Sure!

B - attention? no

C - believe? no. We cant get in the baby's head.

D - often? also, how do we know that the baby doesn't get the toy after the biting? we don't know the outcome and we can't assume. its MSS.

E - HOW do we know they GET the toy after? too big of an assumption for MSS.

summary the stem, which is the ONLY INFORMATION you should be using to answer an MSS question:

• on AVERAGE, 70% of tourism profit in developing countries goes to foreign owners

• in GENERAL, this PROPORTION INCREASES with INCREASED TOURISM and TIME

• carveout -- this CAN be COUNTERACTED (not necessarily overcome, possibly but not definitely fully counteracted) by TOURISTS if they get things directly from locals

A - should? no

B - AT LEAST SOME countries, MOST goes to foreign owners. yes.

C - How can we confirm this from the stem? we cannot.

D - We cannot definitively confirm this from the stem alone! too big of a jump.

E - in ANY WAY? too much of a jump from the stem. nope.

This is a really tough question but I think I could have gotten to the right answer if I would have been able to eliminate D and E, which I see now.

D - It is okay if they did not recover from the physiological changes. The conclusion is only that dioxin is not the cause of the hormone changes and reproductive abnormalities. This is not related.

E - Its ok if its not firmly understood. We only need to understand ONE thing to get the conclusion we have.

To positively GET AC C, you need to understand the premises and conclusion of the argument. It isn't just saying it isn't the dioxin, and one reason why not is A, one reason why not is B. A AND B ARE CONNECTED, we just have to intuit HOW.

It is saying, because dioxin decomposes really slowly, YET when the plant is NOT pumping out dioxin, the fish RECOVER, this means that its not the dioxin. IE, there is STILL dioxin in the area right downstream of the plant where the fish are, but they are recovered, so its NOT the dioxin.

Well, what if the river does not allow the dioxin to settle in that area? What if it only settles way downstream? That would really interfere and weaken this argument structure.

Key to this is POE. Look for wrong answers that seem like they weaken, but aren't engaging with the argument as much. We want to weaken the ARGUMENT that is being made, ALMOST ALWAYS by engaging with the actual content of the argument. They aren't testing your ability to invent new ideas. They are testing your ability to analyze what's there on the page.

For me, A and B were clearly wrong. I chose C because it seemed to be the weakest of those remaining, but I could not confidently eliminate the other answers, because none of them made sense to me.

Negating a conditional, A --> B becomes A and /B. Like if the Necessary Condition can be negated and exist alongside the sufficient condition, then that is the opposite of the conditional statement. This is really hard to hold in my brain and apply to the argument.

D - this is a little easier to eliminate. The logic just doesn't stand up.

C - its wrong because it doesn't impact the argument. This is especially clear upon negation. In any case, you can see that it doesn't close up the argument, and thats what we need an NA to do.

E - its really confusing but right.

Okay, so if I can get it down to C and E, how can I find the right answer?

1 - I can't depend on the NA crutch that its the softer answer, especially for a really tough question

2 - its going to be hard to negate, or to understand the actual logic of what the answers are saying.

I think my best option in this situation is to TRY and understand the logic of what its saying, and ELIMINATE an answer based on that. It is going to be harder to negate, and I can't depend on the crutch.

tough

analogy questions hinge on relevant details. Need to think about what the relevant details are, and then POE out answers that add in or change details to make the analogy not match up anymore.

A - El Nino is not "the whole" picture, and then the volcanic eruptions are the weight of individual parts. The global temp is "the whole" and then the two impacts on temperature are what we are weighing.

D - this is mainly incorrect because it has the idea of a "false report" which does not match up

E - its right, because it hinges on the idea of missing a relevant impact on the result of a change, before attributing the change to something else.

For a strengthen-except question, the RIGHT answer will probably not weaken, but it will NOT IMPACT the argument. Therefore, you HAVE to read all of the answers, and you HAVE to POE your way to the right answer.

The right answer here does not mention change in temperature at all. How can this strengthen the argument? It just notes that dust exists, but it isn't even clear that it is enough, or high enough, to block out the sun.

I moved too quickly to select the right answer, and eliminate the correct one.

This PF question maps deceptively easily, but the language in its conclusion is key.

What does it mean for a BELIEF to be FALSE? it does not mean that the people DON'T believe it, or that the belief is wrongly held (that is AC D). It means that the belief is NOT TRUE, meaning that it is NOT based in evidence, meaning that the underlying idea that is believed is refuted by evidence. Only AC A pinpoints this.

I chose AC E very quickly, because the language is almost identical, but I missed the fact that it flips the ideas in the conclusion.

This NA question relies heavily on conditional logic, the logic of sets. It is much easier to understand that way, than with the negation test.

The conclusion tells us that Blue Irises is NOT part of the city's art movement. We learn that it is NOT part of the "almost all" group of the city's art movement (it does not have sharp contrast of light and shadow). So, the only way that it could still be part of the city's art movement is if it is an abstract painting. Therefore, if it is NOT part of the city's art movement, then that means it is definitely NOT an abstract painting.

I did not read the stimulus closely enough, or really engage with the details that it was giving me. I needed to pull out the "almost all" in the first sentence, recognize that "only ones" was giving me a cut-out, and then recognize that Blue Irises, if its not part of the city's art movement, and isn't part of the "almost all" group, cannot be an abstract painting.

This is a later question, so they are counting on you reading too quickly. I think that around question 15, I need to start taking a breath before reading every stim. I start to rush around that point.

The conclusion is, basically, "not both." So, something that weakens would show us that it COULD be both.

E does this.

A requires a bunch of assumptions to get anywhere.

D and B are close to each other!

D says that the line is targeting the conclusion. But it is not, it is targeting the premise. It is not targeting the line that "the best life is a life full of activity."

B says that it is targeting the premise, and this is right. It is targeting the line about happiness, not the best life.

This is a tough NA question!

Stim tells us that MANY people can have their LIVES saved ONLY in specialized treatment centers, and that the INCOME that they would make, out in the world after having their life saved, would SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE the GDP of country X via both their spending and the taxes on their income. SO, even ignoring the humanitarian life-saving capacity of the STCs, country X should introduce emergency TRANSPORTATION to the treatment centers. We are told that country Y also did this.

It is a strange argument on multiple levels. the conclusion is just about TRANSPORTATION to the centers. and the argument is specifically ECONOMIC, and really focused on the FUTURE EARNINGS of the people who live through traumatic accidents because of quick transpo to a SCT.

I am sure there are multiple assumptions, but really upon reading I am just like, this is a strange argument and a strange conclusion. I am gonna go to the answers.

A - disqualified because we don't have any details about country Y. Whether this is true, or not, this doesn't impact the argument.

B - I mean, this weakens the argument I guess. If there aren't treatment centers, then the transportation is useless. In any case its not a NA.

C - I kept on first pass. But looking more closely, even if the treatment is "more costly," if the savings from their life after treatment is MORE, then this can't touch the argument.

D - This is the NA. If we negate this, if there is NOT a net increase in employment for the survivors of accidents, then they aren't going to have any income, and the argument is destroyed.

E - I chose this as my answer first pass. But it is not necessary, because even if MOST ARE receiving care in the specialized trauma centers, there are still MORE that could be saved w the transportation conclusion.

This question is NA, but is structured a lot more like how I am used to answering SA questions.

There is a new concept in the conclusion of Speech Acquisition. We need it in the AV we choose. We see that SA --> MCP

In the premises, we see that Producing Sounds --> MCP

So the AC will link Speech Acquisition --> Producing Sounds, in that order.

Even not getting that, I narrowed the answers down to A and B.

C, we don't need it to be COMPLETED during infancy.

D, we don't need it to be the FIRST stage.

E, this is not required, in fact it links the conclusion to itself in a strange way that might actually weaken the argument?

B, Say they CAN intentionally move their tongues while they are babbling. That means that they have some motor ability, which could get us to the idea that infants HAVE a motor ability and they are NOT producing sounds randomly. HOWEVER. Just because the movement is intentional, this does NOT mean that they are VOLUNTARILY producing particular sounds. In other words, it isn't necessary. Additionally, there is an assumption here that the voluntary movement of the tongue is directly equivalent to sound-producing motor ability.

A has no assumptions required. It gives us a conditional that is a required assumption for the conclusion to follow the premises in the stimulus.

C and D are so attractive. I did not choose C because I did not see the PROVING of the truth of an opposing theory, I just saw the DISPROVING of another.

But, D is incorrect because the argument is not taking a "fact," it is taking an alternative explanation. That is not the same as a fact.

C is better because it shows how there is the presupposition (not exact statement, but presupposition, as in the NEXT WORDS that they could say could be the exact statement) implicit in the conclusion indicates the truth of the other theory.

It is a classic flaw, just because one thing doesnt work, doesnt prove the other thing. C and D kinda both describe it. But C is the right answer.

A is correlated with both B and C. This doesn't imply that B is correlated with C. I saw that, but I didn't see the answer.

The wording of the answer is key. We need an answer that says "just because A is correlated with B and C, that does not mean that B and C are correlated. There could in fact be DATA that refutes this. A gives us this data.

I didn't like A because it seemed to be creating an unwarranted situation, when in fact all it was doing was offering an example of how B and C could not be correlated.

E is wrong because a common cause of B and C does not DISPROVE correlation, or undermine it.

I chose C because I saw that the concept of time passing relative to burial was in the quote. But I misunderstood the quote.

I also disqualified B too quickly. I just thought that the REASON for burying the items didn't exist anywhere.

I missed that the key to the quote is WHY the items were buried, or more specifically WHY THEY WEREN'T buried. The intention was NOT to relinquish ownership.

E was easily disqualifiable because it plays on a different definition of abandoned, or talks about "abandoned property" instead of "abandoned objects" within a grave on the property. Abandoned in the first sense intimates the absence of an owner, but in the second sense relates to something left behind.

This was a tough question for me. I answered E.

E had the concept of "offsetting," which I thought paralleled the offsetting of the failures of the US during and after Reconstruction. I did not see this in D.

I see that the motivational difference between "sense of ownership" and "communal responsibility" is key. This makes D the right answer. D also has the concept of "protest" which is key. I should have trusted my gut and stuck with D!

As usual, the key is in the conclusion! The conclusion is about GENERATIONS. And the stim includes a jump to this conclusion, comparing voting records of the early stage of one generation, with the later stage of another. The whole stim is about GENERATIONS, but especially the conclusion.

Therefore, our FLAW is going to point out that jump.

E talks about "age groups." This is a different concept than generations.

If all else fails, just stick with the concepts that the stim, especially the conclusion, talk about! Don't bring in a new one just because an AC is attractive.

Okay, we are down to C and D! The best way to get through a tough question is POE. We can do it!

Looking at C, the wording is really confusing. But I know "not all" means "some." I think this is saying "a person is aware of some of their involuntary actions." That isn't good enough for me, because Marianne's humming could fit it in the not-some group of involuntary actions.

D is much better! Because, we know that Marianne is saying that she is UNABLE to change. She is being given the opportunity to stop humming, but denying it, saying that if its INVOLUNTARY, then it can't ever be controlled. But D denies this! It really destroys Marianne's argument.

This question gives us a BIG leap in the stimulus, which allows us to see a lot of flaws really easily. The difficulty is in the ACs on this one.

We have office workers, and then people who do physical work. Like repair technicians or something, or movers. The office workers have more back injuries. That is strange, right? Yes, especially because the stim tells us that the movers' job is KNOWN to really stress the back. Why would the office workers have more injuries?

Well, the stim gives us a terrible reason. It is because the chairs and other office equipment is improperly designed. That is so lame.

This makes the question a little easier. I can think of a few ways to weaken this, mainly alternative hypotheses. Maybe the office workers are just exercising less. Maybe the movers have good weight belts, but the office workers NEVER get good cushions for their chairs. Maybe the office workers all have big bellies and weak backs, and THIS is an even BIGGER cause of back problems than lifting.

But the ACs make this question super hard. they require assumptions!

B and D are relatively easy to disqualify.

A is wrong. If anything, this gives me MORE questions. And I would have to make a lot of assumptions for this to weaken. But on its face, what I see happening here is it is making the "experiment" of the question even stronger. We are seeing that outside of work, there is NO difference in their lives. So, it is even STRANGER that the office workers get injured more. The movers arent like doing more exercising or something.

C is wrong, but so attractive. The main reason I can see that its wrong is that it doesn't talk about the office workers, or relate to them at all. It assumes that the encouragement of techniques is always used.

E is right. It actually covers a lot, once you make the assumption that physical work is physical exercise. the work/exercise is actually ONE OF THE MOST effective ways to PREVENT OR RECOVER from lower back injuries. That is huge! Enough to make it the right answer.

This is a less common flaw type -- a solution that targets a certain problem, doesn't guarantee that the solution will SOLVE that problem.

JY does a good job of noting that the trap answer A hinges on a misunderstanding of the conclusion. A points out that the solution in the stim doesn't solve ALL potential problems in a survey. That's true, but it isn't the flaw -- the stim notes that it is ONLY trying to solve ONE problem, the problem of respondents' answers seeking to appease surveyors rather than being truthful to their actual beliefs. Of course there are other potential issues, but that is not the flaw in THIS stim.

The flaw is that, just because you have created a well-designed survey, it is STILL POSSIBLE that the respondent could come up with some assumed, UNFOUNDED belief about what the surveyor wants them to say. The respondent is like complete people-pleaser, just trying to figure out what the surveyor wants of them, and will even make something up, invent some intention by the surveyor, to avoid telling their own beliefs.

This is the flaw in the stim -- that just because this fix TRIES to fix a problem, it does not guarantee that it WILL fix the problem.