(A) is textually accurate but far too narrow and misses completely the main point. It doesn’t even mention anything about neutrinos.

The last sentence of (C) may be different from our anticipation, but it does capture the optimism mentioned in the last paragraph. We can overlook this minor innacuracy with confidence that it adequately encompasses the main point of the passage.

(E) is incorrect because the columnist does not overlook this possibility. Their conclusion only concerns the long-term benefit.

(B) points out an important distinction between the evidence offered and the conclusion. If the city in question has a smaller economy, then we can assume that it's less likely for the city to make as much money from the hiring change.

(D) is incorrect because the clinic administrator does not think that there was a violation.

The clinic administrator reinterprets what it means to minimize suffering in order to highlight that the diagnostic tech will minimize suffering. The assumption being undermined is that the diagnostic tech will not minimize suffering.

A way that we can eliminate ACs like (C) in these types of questions is thinking about the argument in the broader context.

Alex gives one reason why she believes that shrimp farming damages the environment.

Jolene does not think that the reasoning Alex offers is factually accurate (shrimp farmers often yield quick easy returns).

But there would be 10000 other reasons why Jolene thinks that shrimp farming harms the environment. Even if Jolene thinks that the 'profits' and 'abandonment' are not a way that the shrimp farms damage the environment, she could strongly believe that shrimp farming threatens the environment because it harms the habitats of algae and other fish species.

In other words, even if you thought "Jolene doesn't think that shrimp farming harms the environment because of their turn-over," it's entirely possible Jolene has some other unstated beliefs about the environmental effects of shrimp farming.

We must accept that Herbert is not our murderer!

Why? Because the police found fingerprints..... of someone else.

This is why (A) is irrelevant... whether or not there were footprints there, we already know that Herbert did not commit the crime.

We are given two possible murderers: Samantha and Herbert. But we don't know that these are the ONLY possible murderers. That is what (C) helps us fill in.

The red flag in (D) is the word "in general." This is a common wrong answer trap where it's far too broad.

As the written explanation states, while passage B is more skeptical toward evolutionary psychology, that doesn't mean they're more skeptical of evolutionary theory in general.

@BoseRost We may be hesitant to select (A) because the 'presumption' is implicitly stated. But the fact that the person leaving the room "understands that the group will relate a recent dream to the person when they are back" is a sign that there is an expected order/coherence.

So say that hypothetically I left the room, I would be thinking that "when I go back, the group will relay to me a recent dream that occurred."

Wexell gives us a reason that the museum has wasted its money in buying PC: the items don't have artistic significance outside the context of a performance.

Robinson concludes that the museum did not waste its money.

Why? Because (1) many of the PC's are too old and fragile for use in a performance. And, (2) displaying PC's is the only way to make them available to the public.

Because of how ridiculous Robinson's argument is, it can be tricky to see exactly how the argument proceeds.

As for (1), it seems that Robinson is trying to say to Wexell's claim, "the PC's can't be used in performances." Wexell would probably reply to this, "okay great, so they don't even add value to a performance, so why would they add value to the museum?" In other words, the first premise does literally nothing.

As for (2), Robinson seems to give us a completely new reason to display the items that don't even touch Wexell's argument. Wexell would reply to Robinson, "okay but did you hear what I just said?"

@Haleh @Haleh Hi! If you're referring to (A), the idea is that even if early humans spent more time grooming themselves, it doesn't tell us why they spent virtually no time grooming eachother.

(A) could, analogously say "early humans spent more time singing songs than other primates."

Further, even if we grant (which I don't think we can, but for the purpose of this explanation) that instead of grooming eachother, they groomed themselves and satisfied social cohesion through doing so, that makes the situation even MORE confusing. WHY is it that humans spend their time grooming themselves instead of eachother? That's why (A) doesn't resolve.

@Stas1973 The correct AC does differ from the typical weakening approach. It does come for the premises.

We are told that otherwise it would not be in the company's interest to make A free for 1-month. (D) says... "well it could... via this alternative benefit."

The reason why we can allow this 'attacking the premise' framework is only because the other 4 ACs don't come for the relationship between premise-conclusion.

@Stas1973 J.Y. mentioned an interesting additional way of understanding (A):

The general rule is that: extraordinary --> critically presented

EXCEPTION: backed by evidence of extraordinarily high standard.

The claim in question fails the exception, so the general rule applies. Thus, it should be critically presented, conflicting with the letter to the editor.

@Stas1973 Another issue we can take with (E) is that say that there is a significant amount of carbon deposits formed from the fossilized remains of plants....

The carbon deposits part of the scientist's theory are those dating from the 'formation of the earth' = predates life/plants. So (E) conflicts with the premise: we're talking about the carbon deposits that existed wayyyyy before plant life.

@Stas1973 (C) also patches up a a weakness inherent in the psychologists' argument. Yes, it may be 'reasonable to think' that there is a correlation between CP and adventurousness. But IS there one? (C) gives us this confirmation.

(B) draws an important distinction: susceptibility does not necessarily equal frequency.

Just because more pythons in Africa have the disease, it doesn't mean they are more susceptible to it. What's entirely possible is that all pythons are equally susceptible (all as likely of catching the disease), but that the disease is just more prevalent in Africa.

@Stas1973 The more that I read (C), the more I think it may actually weaken the argument.

If migration from wildlife that isn't native to the park has increased beyond what was the case before the property development, then it's also inferable that the 'increased wildlife' cited as a premise by the author is not native wildlife. In which case, the conclusion would not be supported.

(C) is incorrect for a few reasons.

I think that ultimately the clearest way to eliminate (C), although it may be unsatisfactory, is that there is no hypothesis. Think about it: The author is saying that an action is impossible. But we were never told that anyone actually believed that the action is possible. It's entirely consistent that no one ever hypothesized that predicting an invention is possible. In this case, the author is just telling us something that they think can never happen.

But if you still think there is a hypothesis: just because the 'hypothesis' that "it's possible to predict an invention" is not countered. Rather, the author is pointing out that it's self-contradictory.

Also, the author doesn't indicate that the implications of "it's possible to predict an invention" are false. They just state that the hypothesis itself is contradictory.

"The implications" would mean that "it's possible to preduct an invention" had some consequences that were mentioned. But there are none brought to our attention.

An obstacle to overcome with (E) is that the premises tell us that the poems are mostly similar.

We might be too generous to the journal patron by saying "well the other magazine must then also have these famous features."

But, just because the poems themselves are similar, it doesn't mean that the famous poet features is a similarity.

@soleluna883 Hey! What has really helped me in descriptive weakening questions is piecemeal analysis. Let's do that for all the ACs and then evaluate if they are even descriptively accurate:

(A): The television network executive's argument fails it consider that [scientific understanding] can steadily advance.

True. We know that it can advance via the premises.

...When [scientific understanding] is being impeded by [superstition]....

True. This is a possibility that the author does not consider.

(B): The television network executive's argument takes for granted that if a correlation has been observed between [superstition and scientific understanding]...

True. We know that there is a correlation.

...[superstition and scientific understanding] must be causally related.

FALSE. If anything, the author is denying, not affirming, a causal relationship.

(C): The television network executive's argument fails to consider that the occurence of [superstition] can indirectly affect the pervasiveness of [scientific knowledge] even if [superstition] does not impede [scientific knowledge].

True. This isn't something the author considers.

• (C) is incorrect because it's exclusion is not problematic for the argument. Even if pervasiveness of scientific knowledge was effected, the author only cares about the quality of public understanding at large, not the pervasiveness of it.

(D): The television network executive's argument fails to consider that just because [superstition is known to affect scientific understanding].....

FALSE. There is no causal relationship accepted by the author.

(E): The television network executive's argument takes for granted that the fact that [skepticism impedes scientific understanding] must be baseless...

True. This is precisely what the author claims.

...if [scientific understanding] has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of [skepticism].

FALSE. We don't know that skepticism has been steadily increasing.

(C) is a trap. Say that at 2 months, Activite reaches 100% effectiveness, and at 1 month Activite only reaches 50% effectiveness.

The conclusion can still follow because the 1-month trial period may presumably show the beginning signs of effectiveness. So it’s possible that Activite is effective.

(D) opens up another way that Activite could be benefitting from the trial period. Perhaps they make profit from handling prices.

*We can’t assume that free trials and precluded from handling fees. For all we know this handling fee applies to the trials as well.

The author tells us that there is an inherent conflict between two beliefs: we can't believe that Caravaggio was a Baroque painter and that Barqoque must display opulence, heroic sweep, and extravagance.

Why does the author think that these conflict? We can prephrase that there is some sort of tension between Caravaggio's paintings and the display of these traits. (E) supplies us with this link.

Take this analogous argument:

Sally says that strawberries are the most delicious fruit. Thomas says that the most delicious fruit must be blue. Therefore, we can't accept both beliefs.

• What is our SA here: that strawberries are not blue.

We don't know if Edward believes that tax redistribution forces people to help others. Agreement and disagreement here are both possible. So (D) is incorrect.

Did anyone else not know what on earth 'Middle Ages' is?! I guess it's just me.

Lesson learned: it encompasses medieval times.

(A) presents us with a rule for extraordinary claims:

uncritically present --> high standard of evidence

Based on the stimulus ("Mr. Hanlon saw an alien spaceship"), we can infer that there is no high standard of evidence. The necessary condition is negated. Thus:

/high standard of evidence --> /uncritically present

According to (A), the newspaper can't present Mr. Hanlon's claim uncritically. This is a direct conflict with the letter to the editor.

(B) is incorrect because Mr. Hanlon is not an intermediary source. He directly saw the alien spaceship himself, so he would be a direct source.

@MMAceAttorney177 @Ramisul17 (D) tells us that they would make profit from the handling fee. While we don't know if they also make profit via that production of the product, as you point out, (D) nonetheless still tells us that they make some profit from it: an alternative explanation for the phenomenon.

(C): Based on the fact that the govt can't determine whether the citizens of F have a majority govt, we can't say for certain that the requirement was violated.