It's so important to recognize that not every strengthener answer will directly relate to the premise exactly.
Looking through the ACs, I initially had anticipated an AC that focused directly on how the price reduction benefited the consumers. After reviewing A-D, none of them show a clear benefit via price reduction to the consumers. So, we have to settle for A, which does strengthen, however minimally it strengthens.
This question requires a good understanding of what the difference is between A and B.
A: essentially, the author would use a statement about the consequences of something to say that something about the action itself is false.
For example, "stealing a library book is wrong because doing so hurts the feelings of the librarians."
B: The author 'strawmans' by responding to an argument about the consequences of something, equally as the consequences of everyone believing that statement.
For example, "stealing a library book does hurt the librarians, because if all the books were stolen, then the library would have to shut down."
B is precisely what Sid is doing here!
C is incorrect because perception of having experienced an event does not accurately represent having experienced that event.
While 40% say that they have experienced this event, it could be true that 80% have. We have no clue how many have actually experienced it.
E, however, refers to a specific turn of phrase used in the stimulus. The first time around, the subjects were asked about a more specific experience, whereas the second time around, they were asked about the same experience, just in a less detailed manner. The results showed that fewer people responded the second time around. That is why E is correct!
@truezeitgeist Thanks for chipping in! Upon review, it looks like my misunderstanding arose from a lack of the argument structure.
Thank you again!
I find that for the first few stimuli or passages, all that I can think about is my score/worrying about doing well on the PT. Sometimes this prevents me from understanding the argument (even if it's simple), because I'm so preoccupied! Does anyone have any strategies that have worked for them to stay present and (for lack of better words), how to not freak out!
Thank you so much 7Sage Community!
@louis1108 Hi, English is also my second language. As you can see I made this post over a month ago. Now, I am right at my timed goal. I am telling you this so you know that you will get there too with time! You are not alone, we're in this together!! :)
@mxoreilly100 Thank you so much. Thankfully time helped and I reached my goals. I wish you all the best and more!
Great example of how /C--> /P strengthens. It is the exact contrapositive of the argument.
A strong indication that E is incorrect is that the only information in the passage given regarding the thoroughness of documents is in the thrid paragraph. It mentions that medieval church records are extraordinarily rich. But there is no comparison here to the records of civil courts. Therefore, we would not be able to make such a comparison.
Even if we do not understand what 'fervor' means in this instance, it's better to choose the AC that we don't fully understand over one that we know for certain is wrong. D, a common trap answer choice, is incorrect because we are never told there is difficulty in understanding this idea. In fact, the idea is explained clearly and in depth in the following sentences.
A great example of why we should always have a good idea of the purpose before answering the questions. The passage is dedicated to extrapolating the circumstances and autonomy of medieval women. This is precisely what AC B suggests.
A and C are incorrect because the passage never mentioned that the status of these women was controversial/in debate.
This question asks what the phrase 'in England' does for the passage.
In the first paragraph, we're told that women who were widows had power and autonomy. Given the first few sentences, this presents itself somewhat as a paradox. Why did women have power? Paragraph 2 explains why by providing information why.
The third paragraph then elaborates and provides some additional conditions of autonomy (married women with absent husbands).
This is why it's so important to have a strong idea of the passage organization before going into the questions. C describes exactly the role of the second paragraph.
@KevinLin I can’t thank you enough for your thoughtful response and time! It is very helpful and greatly appreciated. Thank you again and have a wonderful day!
I guess the takeaway from this question is that ‘very effective’ can be diagrammed as ‘effective’ just as the aforementioned lecturers from the first sentence.
The test makers are expecting us to read A as 'a decrease...' while the passage does implicitly support that a decrease in the degree to which platelets can cause blood clots would prevent premature heart disease. But no, it says 'increase!'
As for C (common trap answer), which is a little bit trickier to sort out, in the second paragraph, it states that the absorption of alcohol is slower into the bloodstream in the case of wine. Why does this matter? Because we are told later on that blood flow is important to preventing heart disease.
I'm really at a loss here. I have re-watched the video explanations and read the analysis a countless amount of times, but I just can't get past the conditional diagramming of the last sentence:
Wealth is often harmful to people = wealth --> harm
What confuses me is that in another question (106.2.6 - The Rienzi), the word 'normally' is specifically advised not to indicate a conditional relationship, but instead that X is what 'usually' happens. See in the written analysis of this question, 'normally' is interpreted as 'usually,' just as in this question. Why is the use of such non-inclusive language (often/usually/normally) any different in this question?
Should we simply be more charitable to the author in this instance? I understand the approach that we must see what the author is trying to accomplish by using the 2 premises to reach the conclusion, but it doesn't seem right to me that in certain instances 'often' should be treated as 'some,' but in this case, it should be treated as 'all.'
I would greatly appreciate anyone's insight on this as I am stuck! Thank you.
Even though a 'common enemy' is never mentioned, a great deal of inference is required from us to link the concepts.
What is the stimulus saying? Conclusion: Essentially, after the Cold War, relationships between countries that were on the same side (allied) became more difficult. Why? Premise: Because the leaders of these ex-on-the-same-side countries were forced to make some $$ deals to avoid conflict, when they were on the same side, didn't really matter.
Personally, when I read the questions stem, I am thinking of this question as a principle example question. So, I'm looking for an AC that is in line with the stimulus.
a) military matters are not mentioned in the stimulus.
b) it's possible that these two nations mentioned in the stimulus are fearful of a common enemy, but it's also possible that they are global leaders and are feared by all the other countries.
c) again as in A, military considerations are not mentioned, nor compared, with economic considerations.
d) this is quite contradictory to the stimulus. Nonetheless, importance is never suggested or implied.
e) hmm.. it is an oddly worded choice, but let's investigate. a common enemy (this is the inference that we need to make: two allied countries could mean, or does mean, sharing a common enemy) strengthens their connection, which lets them avoid these $$ deals. Think about the opposite: when the common enemy no longer exists (not allied anymore), then the economic negotiations would have to be had.
Although E does require a decent amount of inference, it's light years ahead of the other 4 ACs.
There is an important distinction to make between two conditionals in this stimulus.
The statement in the second sentence says: seat --> favour of increased peacekeeping AND greater role for dispute moderation
In the last sentence, we are told: in favour of increased peacekeeping <-s-> against increased refugee spending
It is essential to note that the "some countries that are in favour of increased peacekeeping" do not necessarily need to be the ones with the seat! So, these two statements cannot be chained.
For example, if the 5 countries with seats are Canada, Greece, Cuba, Antigua, and Mexico, then yes, they all are in favour of increased peacekeeping. But Portugal could also be in favour of increased peacekeeping. In terms of the second conditional that I mentioned, it could be Portugal that is against increased refugee spending.
This is precisely the distinction that makes AC B incorrect.
Goodness gracious. Although the argument appears to be straightforward, it requires a super solid understanding of the argument structure.
Conclusion: govt protection can help the net economy of regions of natural beauty, even if the protection harms some older local businesses.
Premises: these regions experience influxes of residents and businesses.
To put this into practice: If the Cuban govt introduces restrictions on coastal fishing, it will help the Cuban economy, even though it could hurt the local restaurants. Why? Because lots of new residents and businesses will move in!
So, without looking at the ACs, what's the assumption? What if the coastal fishing restriction actually made the new businesses change their minds about moving there? Or, what if the policies had a detrimental effect on the new businesses' ability to open? Then, the govt protection may actually hurt the economy (the conclusion would not be supported).
E addresses this exact assumption. It's also a great example of why all ACs should be considered before being eliminated, in case you didn't initially spot the assumption here. A factor (the govt protection) that hurts some local businesses cannot also discourage the new businesses from moving in!
B is a hard trap answer. But when reviewing it, it seems evident that it's referring to something completely different. Let's say that B is the case: in most of these regions, the economy is based on these local businesses that would be harmed. It seems the environmentalist knows that these local businesses would be harmed, and they therefore provide a reason why the economies would benefit: the NEW businesses.
Even though B is tempting (at it's surface), we can't allow it to distract us from the correct AC mentioned later on (E)!
A key word that makes AC A incorrect is that it states the research 'casts doubt' on the aforementioned study results. That is not what the research in the third paragraph is doing, however.
E is much closer to the author's conception of the third paragraph: code-switching is used for rhetorical effect.
Hi, I have never heard of this. Is there info about it on their site?