I identified the flaw as part-whole. This was wrong. The flaw was a misdirected response.

The psych professor says applied stats should be taught by the social science dept.

The math prof says no. My stats course covers the same material. The textbook is the same.

Okay, sounds good. Your course is good. But I still think that the applied stats course should still be taught by the social science department. They are still the best for teaching students the material.

A - student willingness is not part of the conclusion or any argument. It is about who should teach.

B - The conclusions are not about student competence. It is about who should teach.

C - Correct.

D - Wrong flaw description. This is ad hominem, which doesn't happen in the argument.

E - This sort of describes a part to whole flaw. But that is not the flaw in the argument. Also, this AC is saying there is an assumption that if content same --> textbook same. This kind of conditional logic is not in the stimulus. Additionally, there is MORE evidence in the stim that if there WAS a conditional framework, it would be the opposite -- if the textbook is the same, then the content is the same.

strengthen EXCEPT

So we have our CURRENT maps. They show where different plants that we are gardening will do REALLY well (does it show where they will do badly? Maybe.) But they are based on REALLY old weather data (60 years old) from a few hundred "primitive" weather stations. So they sound not super ideal. Things have changed in the last 60 years, and the "primitive" weather stations sound like they are outdated, dilapidated maybe even. GOOD NEWS! We are getting NEW maps! they are using COMPUTER data from SEVERAL THOUSAND MODERN weather stations. They also use our own gardening data. CONCLUSION: these new maps are gonna be way better.

Totally true! I can pretty clearly see why the new maps are better. Maybe there are some exceptions to that, or maybe there is something in this old map that we are losing. I want 4 answers that strengthen, and one won't affect the argument (or slight chance it weakens it).

A - This is part of the argument, it strengthens if the home gardeners can add additional data.

B - SOME are older than 60 years old. Does that really matter? No impact.

C - Strengthens!

D - Strengthens!

E - Good! Our data collections tools have advanced too. strengthens.

I was sure I had found the flaw. That the author is assuming that the total is just going to keep going down if you reject beliefs, instead of adopting some new ones. This is B.

But I missed that this was included in the stim -- "never change the set," only remove false ones. This means no new ones EVER. The phrasing of that is confusing. Also, I do think the statistician's argument is flawed in that it doesn't allow for the inclusion of new ideas. But that is not what I am looking for.

I also missed a bigger flaw -- the inclusion of the idea of survival. This gets us down to A and D.

D is NOT something the author takes for granted. The author is not saying that we NEED to adopt some false, survival-related beliefs. They are just saying we need to keep a lot of beliefs.

A contains the core flaw. That the statistician's plan just doesn't include the idea of hindering our ability to survive?? It makes a wacky argument even more wacky.

Stuck between C and E, but went with E.

It is a critical analysis, but is not EXPLICITLY stated that it will WORSEN the situation. It is just POINTING OUT CONSEQUENCES. It actually doesn't even outline the current situation.

I need an AC that shows something where success is determinant, where the payout is DEPENDENT on success, and the payout in that case is larger than normal.

A - noted on actual and BR that that concept of a group pooling funds is not accurate. WRONG

B - Depends on success, and bigger payout. CORRECT

C - Dividing returns based on risk? WRONG

D - Insurance is not a comparable situation. Administration and marketing is not analogous. WRONG

E - Loan.... reduction of risk through insurance, and then payment in any case, NOT just in the case of repayment? not analogous. WRONG.

This is a THIRD question that counts on you understanding the connection between the pro-CO2 hypothesis in the first paragraph and the Billings/decomposition experiment in the last paragraph. If I would have gotten the MP question right, I could have gotten all of the first three questions right. I needed to do a better low-res summary.

This is a SECOND question (just like the last one, the MP question) that counts on you understanding the relationship between the hypothesis in the first paragraph, and the conclusions reached in the last paragraph, I got the last one wrong, and also this one, and I am willing to bet if I would have done a good low-res summary, and understood the main point, I would have had the information to also answer this question correctly.

A is too strong. Always look out for a word like "primarily," most, all, etc in an answer choice that restricts an AC without warrant.

It didn't click until I watched this video! I came back to this after weeks of drilling, and I think now I finally get SA questions.

E - change in our knowledge of objects = we learn more amphibian species, so the total number of them that we are tallying goes up. But there aren't actually more in existence. The only thing that changed is what we know. Changes in the objects themselves = there are actually less amphibian species if some go extinct due to pollution

@estebanb3d194 if there is a parallel flaw, choose the answer that irritates you in the same way, I guess. This does make sense to me.

B is the ONLY answer that connects the premise (2-3 feet on the ground) to the conclusion (not running). In SA, the answer must connect the premise to the conclusion.

I did not like B, because it seemed to not cover everything. What if something just has one foot on the ground? But B actually goes OVERboard in a way that doesn't hurt me. It makes the conclusion true... in an annoyingly overinclusive way.

I chose E, which could be true, sure, but doesn't impact the argument. It doesn't connect the premise to the conclusion. I don't care about what constitutes walking. Because while walking is probably contained within "not running," there are probably other things contained there too. So it could REALLY have no impact on the argument.

While A is true, and there are elements of many answers that are true, there is only one that really engages with the argument and truly identifies the CORE issue, that the philosopher ambiguously uses the word identity. Once as physical identity, and one as identical in meaning. While B also appears to answer this, it actually is talking about something different -- in the stim, the two sentences are NOT identical physically. In D, the philosopher's ambiguity is captured.

This question made very little sense to me when I read it, and then less sense on BR. But now I get it.

This guy is saying OUR BEST have these qualities. so we should always favor applicants with those qualities.

What kind of argument is that?? He is saying that WE hired them, they're here, and they're the best, let's get more of them? He is IGNORING the whole world out there of people who are sales experts who didn't go to engineering school! And how can we weaken his argument? Well the BEST way to do that is to point out that MOST OF THE PEOPLE that he is hiring have those qualities. So, how is he ever gonna know different? How can he know if there is anyone better?

Got it down to B and C. I liked C because I had in my mind "okay, it helps with heart disease, but that is so rare. What about the common cold? It isn't helping with that." C seemed to point to the idea that even if aspirin helps with heart disease, it is overlooking the fact that there are still a bunch of other diseases, including mild ones, that are the MAIN things keeping a greater proportion of the population in ill health.

But this is unwarranted! The reporter is JUST talking about heart disease. I am engaging with a new argument that I invented.

With the argument that exists, B is the best answer. It engages with the "most people would be in better health if they took aspirin" thesis. Okay... but MOST people aren't in immediate danger of heart disease. Why would it be good for MOST people to take it?

My conclusion has MTM Wigs --> Should be DC

MTM Wigs are Mid-Priced to Expensive

IF its got human hair, it should be dry cleaned

Can I connect MPtoE to human hair in the ACs? no, but I can narrow it down to answers A or D. D introduces a new idea, in a way that sounds familiar, but disqualifies it. So the answer is A.

There is more mapping that makes it easier to understand, but this is how I understood this quickly. I realized that the most important thing is recognizing the premises and conclusion (wish I would have just internalized this during the fundamentals course) and then finding something in the conclusion that is dangling, needs a link to the premises.

@sxcoker20 Yes, you need some way of connecting the premise chain (it's a little more than you had, I had Genuine CG --> dissatisfied --> controversy --> demonstrating falsehoods) to the conclusion chain (GCG --> anger the majority).

The way to complete this chain is to get the necessary condition of the conclusion to link up onto the big premise chain. The way to do that is to connect the end of the premise chain (demonstrating falsehoods) to the end of the conclusion chain (angering the majority).

B is the answer choice that does this.

contacting lots of buyers AND comparing prices --> A functioning free market

-------------------

auto repair industry ----> /a functioning free market

I need some bull shit to connect A to C. I need an answer that connects the negated sufficient conditions of a functioning free market to the auto repair industry.

I am seeing a bunch of answers that have elements of those sufficient conditions.... but honestly I also see a bunch of other BS.

A - habit? nah

C - How does some repair shops not giving written estimates impact price comparisons? nah

D - more than its worth? sure, its a scam, but its not the scam I am looking for.

E - regulations? I don't remember this in the stim.

POE gets me to B. Or, I could hunt and get B.

(ME --> lowerBCL) (may or may not be correct, if the study is correct)

lowerBCL --> lowerHofA -->lowerBofA

---------------------------------

ME --> lowerBofA

I need the whole chain of premises to match up to get to my conclusion. And they do, but only if that study is legit!

My first pass on this, I got it wrong because I chose C. C is supported! C is the first premise, A-->C. BUT it doesn't guarantee the conclusion.

I NEED an answer choice that links to the conclusion. The only way I get that is answer D.

I answered D on both actual and BR

D is incorrect for multiple reasons.

1 - how can we make a conclusion about the central administrations of ALL large institutions? For all we know, there could be nearly NO decentralized large institutions. If that was the case, then how could we form a conclusion? We don't know anything about them.

2 - Assume we are talking about a situation where a significant portion, or most of the central administrations we are talking about here are of decentralized large institutions. This AC says that those admins are PARTIALLY responsible for MOST of the details of daily operations. From the stim, we know that, in a decentralized institution, they are permitted to focus on the big picture without getting overwhelmed in daily operations. So this AC has a big assumption -- the admin is only gonna be overwhelmed if they are responsible for MOST of the details. What if its only a few details, but it really overwhelms them?

3 - Usually? we don't know what is usually the case. We only know how decentralization effects this. And that could be super rare! or just theoretical!

A is correct. It is the only correct answer, but idk if I could get there without process of elimination.

Usually I am gonna disqualify this one immediately because its making a conclusion that I can't make. But the thing is, I CAN make a conclusion about WHAT CONDITIONS bring about NON-MAXIMALLY REALISTIC PLANNING. I don't know that decentralization is the MAXIMALLY realistically planned. But I do know that it is MORE than some. So, if its NOT this, then it is going to be LESS. or, in other words, NOT MAXIMALLY REALISTIC.

@Hacheeee Try and negate E, and see if it undermines the argument. If some painters can match her brush style, that doesn't actually impact the argument. The forged painting DOESN'T HAVE the classic Cassatt brush style.

So if I said to the art historians, No wait! Some painters CAN match the brush style! They would say, Okay, whatever, this painting doesn't even have that brush style. Negating that assumption has no impact on the argument. I am laughed out of the room.

But, try and negate B. I shout at the art historians, Aha! Some of Cassatt's work uses a unique brush style. They would look dumb as hell. Because they made this assumption that the argument depends on, that Cassatt doesn't have a single work that uses a unique brush style. I have destroyed their argument. So this is the right answer because negating it makes the art historians look stupid.

I say all of this and I actually chose E on both the test and on BR.

We need an answer that says, A or B are our choices. If B, then C. We don't want C. So, not B.

A - Gives us A and B. This is not followed by a conditional, so WRONG.

B - correct. follows the structure.

C - Gives us A and B, and then both? no, not the structure we need. WRONG.

D - the structure is really far off. WRONG

E - A or B. If A, but not C, then D, and we don't want D? so if B, then D? pretty far off. WRONG

B is a trap answer choice, really hinging on you misreading the question. The question is asking how the COUNTERING biologists would interpret the DOMINANT biological explanation of parasite behavior. B really attractively summarizes our COUNTERING biologist's opinion. But D is the right answer, because it (imperfectly) describes how our countering biologist would describe the dominant biological explanation.

This one was really hard. I could have talked myself into any of the answers, and really got stuck on B. That is what I selected.

In BR, I REALLY could have talked myself into any of the answers. In the end, I went back to my summary, and really tried to narrow the low res down to ONE word -- and to me, that is taphonomy. The purpose of the passage, if I had to say it in ONE WORD, is taphonomy.

So, which of these answers reflects that?

A - There is just taphonomy, no "outdated" equivalent.

B - this doesn't describe how taphonomy functions in the passage. it is not a preconception.

C - taphonomy is not a narrative

D - CORRECT. Taphonomy is the basis for the revisionary approach.

E - Darwin is, I guess, an old theory. and the new theory is the scavenger one. But the core of the passage (taphonomy) is the WHY, not the WHAT. I don't care WHAT theory replaced the old one. I care WHY. that is the key to purpose questions.

Damn. I just though too much about it in BR. I should ONLY change my BR answer if there is something that I MISSED in the answer choices or something on my first pass. I shouldn't change my answer just because I am questioning myself or my reasoning.