A similar analogy can help understand this stimulus better.

A bakery has decided to offer a special cake every week to attract customers. Each week’s cake will feature only one fruit, chosen based on what the baker predicts will be the most popular fruit that week. To maintain excitement, the bakery plans for each week’s cake to feature a different fruit.

Ask how I can prove that I would need to feature a different fruit each week?

Answer choice C

No cake contains more than one type of fruit.

Answer choice D

Each week, the fruit predicted to be most popular will not have been predicted in any previous week.

We must assume the predicted fruit changes each week, just like the influenza strain example.

My notes

50 percent M was recycled from group L

all of L was recycled in M.

The conlcusion says "it follows that M contains twice as many cans as L."

This calculation assumes all of L’s aluminum actually ends up in M.

The stimulus did mention "all the cans in L were recycled into cans in M a," But that's just the physical can, not the aluminum.

It does not tell us that the aluminum in those cans was fully recovered. 

A - Eco detergents contain much lower amounts of surfactants than other detergents.

• Surfactants are the known harmful ingredient.

• If eco detergents have less of the harmful stuff, that gives a reason to suppose they are less damaging.

The part that’s under suspicion is the argument itself, not the answer choices. So dont take the arguments data as completely true.

likely, probably, expected, more likely than not signal that the conclusion is probabilistic, not certain. meaning percentages.

So answer choice B is out for that reason since it's talking about raw numbers. We can't choose numbers if we're making a conclusion about percentages.

E - more likely. Yes, and it also touches on the assumption about licensing records (data).

Hopefully, this helps you all

First read the Q stem, then don't get hung upon the fact that it says "describe the relationship."

Our job is to find which sentence the question stem is referring to.

"can one be at home without being in one's house?"

Dont think just because they said without that it would be the same thing as saying required in this context. This was a trick to throw you off. Also a hint to think that the last sentence is not the one they are asking about.

That first sentence is really just not needed, which is what their asking about.

C - The claim is compatible with the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

This means that it is context, background info, and it doesn’t play a direct role in proving, supporting, or opposing the conclusion.

A occurring without B.

A - This is the conclusion of the argument and hence the last sentence, and not the first.

With the first statement, the conclusion could, in principle, be accepted without it.

The word without also matches the first sentence instead of the last sentence.

without being in one's house = not in one's house at all.

Required = what's needed A is not required for B.

B can happen without A.

The diagram of the last sentence

So close --> Spinning.

This wasn't saying that it wasn't close.

The assumption is that the 49 km is actually very close.

So 49 km --> spinning.

Which is C.

meaning it has to be spinning for it to be 49km.

D - causal stuff wasn't mentioned.

E - It says stationary. Not the right SA.

• The correct form = Not spinning - stationary --> not close.

As for A and B

A - The correct form = Not spinning - stationary --> not close. A mixes this up.

B - we don't know.

Also, whenever you see unless, see if there is a "not" or "no"

treat unless as if not.

Because there was a not and an unless, I basically made them go positive. Hence, So close --> Spinning.

The CP would be not spinning --> not close. (This is the original form, but since I made it positive, it became the contrapositive). Either way is right.

Just remember, since your taking the contrapositive as the first form, make sure that you also switch the OR/AND if there was on in a stimulus.

The way I do it is just an extra step with AND/OR. do whatever works for you!

Can D also be wrong because of “Governments should not have the power “ since in the stimulus we have Governments should not be allowed to instead.

Read "and resulting delays for motorists" as “traffic congestion and the delays for motorists that result from it” increased rather than decreased.

A - Yes, we got more motorists on the road now.

B - This explains why it was already bad, not why the increase still happened AFTER.

• "Then leveled off" (stopped growing)

• Then they widened the road

So at the time of widening, the population is not increasing.

• which means the population cannot explain why congestion suddenly gets worse after widening.

I chose C both times, but more because the rest were ass, and C felt more right since I was already thinking about the "voluntary choice" aspect.

Hope this explanation will help

Conclusion - Thus people's voluntary choice not to exercise places a significant burden on society.

Ask yourself, where did the idea of voluntary choice come from? But what if it's not voluntary? If not, then that wouldnt be a burden now, would it?

A - Okay cool, so the people who already exercise don't wanna do more elsewhere. - So its voluntary. The opposite of what we want.

B - Just because it's been omitted doesn't say much about the voluntary choice.

C - causal reversal basically. Health problems leading to sedentary and which leads to higher costs which is the opposite of what the stimulus was going for.

D - This is irrelevant. It brings in no differences between anything. Just general information.

E - Sounded like a strength to me. Either way, it just talks about the benefits of exercise.

C - Patients who feel they are doing well tend to remain in treatment, while those doing poorly tend to quit earlier.

• Selection bias.

This means that the long-term group automatically contains more people who were already doing better, even before the “long-term” distinction.

The long-term group looks better not because long-term therapy works better,

but because only the people who are improving stay long enough to be counted in that group.

If the conclusion is about likelihood / relative effectiveness, then exclusivity isn’t required.

If the conclusion says nothing else can achieve this, then exclusivity matters.

Which is why C is out and B is in.

Tested X against nothing and concluded X is best. Not sure what to call this flaw but this is the pattern.

me!!

For those who are confused about C.

In Weaken Question, we're not supposed to attack the premises, but rather attack the assumption that the premise to conlsuion, makes.

The premise basically says, Because hunting is too weak to be plausible, disease must be the crucial factor.”

We are weakening the conclusion by showing that the key assumption (hunting was insufficient) might be false.

Answer choice C - Very few species of North American animals not hunted by the new arrivals from Asia were extinct 2,000 years after the first migrations.

Always ask what the other way of looking at this means.

This means Most species of North American animals were hunted.

Few species that were not hunted went extinct → Most species not hunted did not go extinct.

So memorize this = Few X are Y → Most X are not Y

An example of AC, C.

Few students are failing the exam.

• Inference: Most students are not failing.

This was rather an easy question; HOWEVER, they made it seem so dense, for absolutely no reason.

Here is the explanation

The premise establishes that some greenhouse gases had to be higher.

• They mentioned CO2 and "which, like methane, is a "greenhouse gas."

• You may have missed this part because it's written like a side note, instead of thinking we may have another potential explanation, (another gas type).

But there’s no evidence that it had to be carbon dioxide specifically.

C - This may slightly strengthen, because it's talking about how dissolved minerals (salt) didn't alter their freezing point. Hence, ruling out a non-greenhouse explanation.

E - Talks about why it’s warmer now, not why it wasn’t frozen then. More radiation means more heat arriving at Earth.

For those who had an issue with "walk more as a result" part of answer choice C.

In the stimulus "Research shows that the major leg muscles of people walking in toning shoes receive no more exercise than..."

This is talking about how much the major leg muscles are worked per step.

No more exercise means the muscles are not being worked harder per step.

The last sentence says it strengthens their major leg muscles after switching. But how come we may ask.

This is where frequency becomes relevant. More total exercise → major leg muscles strengthened, even though per-step intensity didn’t change.

So "walking more as a result" explains why their major leg muscles would strengthen. They just walk more.

When the stimulus gives a paradox like, X doesn’t increase Y per unit, but Y happens anyway, look for total exposure, frequency, or duration

THIS is for people who eliminated C because the stimulus mentioned Similar illnesses.

The premise only tells us recovery rates are similar FOR patients with similar illness. This is not talking about ALL patients.

The conclusion, however, is about the overall average length of stay at University Hospital, which includes all patients, not just the subset of similar illnesses in the study.

C - This answer choice is also talking about ALL patients who tend to be treated for different illnesses. WHICH is something the stimulus did not consider.

So even if recovery rates for similar illnesses are equal, the overall average stay could still be longer, and reducing it might harm recovery.

Since there are other patients to consider.

I would describe this Flaw as a subset comparison → to the overall average

Hope that Helped.

A - Ignores differences in intensity or degree (a kind of equivocation on a quality).

B - Circular Reasoning. ASK yourself, was evidence provided? Yes prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place. So it's not Circular. Or ASK, do I see the conclusion being repeated again in the premises? If not, then it's also not circular reasoning.

C - Ask yourself, Morgenstern twisted a premise Brooks said. The flaw is in reasoning, not in misrepresentation.

Acknowledgment or concession point = While it's true that the defendant presented a strong alibi and considerable exculpatory evidence, and was quickly acquitted by the jury. (not guilty).

Conclusion = I still believe that there must be a good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in the case.

Premise = Otherwise, the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place.

A. "There was no lack of evidence, ...the view is false." This flaw is rather obvious when it happens.

B. Circular Reasoning. ASK yourself, was evidence provided? Yes prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place. So it's not Circular. Or ASK, do I see the conclusion being repeated again in the premises? If not, then it's also not circular reasoning.

C. Correct. It thinks the authority is reliable enough to conclude that the defendant may not be innocent, therefore guilty.

undue = too much or unwarranted.

D. "Confuses...." If the author never shifted between these terms or thoughts then its not it. We never even talked about them.

E. This relies upon your understanding of what the conclusion relies on. That last sentence, "the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place". Is what the conclusion is relying on, not the fact that it was quickly decided to be not guilty.

Practicing the Method of reasoning will help you with these.

Hope this helps!

I read the stimulus and knew the kind of flaw it was; however, the wording in B tripped me up. But after review,

This type of flaw can be described as

“Attacking a goal because one means of achieving it is problematic.”

So B is basically saying, "...one means to an end is unacceptable, that the end should not be pursued."

Means = method

End = goal

In other words, rejecting the end (goal) because one means (method) is flawed

After all, just because a method is detrimental, it doesn't mean we should not seek the entire goal of getting there.

Hope that helps!

I was between A and C in this question. However, they are both just bad in my opinion. For A, I thought that it was just irrelevant to say, "than do heart problems," and for C, I would have had to assume that somehow stress leads to heart problems, which is kind of crazy to assume. So I ended up picking C. How is that a warranted assumption to make, though? Do we just pick the worst answer choice in these kinds of cases?

is this failure to consider alternative possibilities, or false dichotomy?

We are not explaining why women earn less.

We're trying to explain why ALL women average earnings are lower than full-time Women. Since you would expect that all women would have a higher average than just full-time women.

Answer choice D says that because a greater percentage of women work part-time and earn less. This would bring the average down for all employed women.

C - This would make the discrepancy bigger in the wrong direction, because you’d expect the all-women average to increase, maybe even exceed 80% if C was true.

It's crazy how they can make such an easy argument this dense, but anyways, it's basically saying,

Group/entity condemns or opposes a person’s action.

But that same group actually supports the policy/outcome the person was acting toward(most members).

hidden assumption

B - The group condemns the action of the person, not the underlying policy. The Prime Minister didn't have the authority to initiate it, basically.

Also, "on the contrary" was meant to trip you up, which would shift your focus to the voting aspect.

If you picked E, maybe you were too focused on the voting aspect, but E is not even saying that. In the stimulus, we have "most members" not most people(public sentiment"

So we dont care about the public.

fun fact. 

“Marjorie Shostak’s Nisa” means the book titled Nisa, written by Marjorie Shostak. Idk bout you guys but I was lost af not knowing this.