@jbrodhecker Think MAGA

I think that RC is just one of those things that you need to grind. Do more and your baseline will start to get better. Also, don't skip on review. That's where you put the work in so that you perform when timed.

@rickyrivas94 I think you're making this question harder than it needs to be by trying to diagram it. For SA questions you just need to remember that you want to guarantee the conclusion. Treat the ACs as another premise that when the correct one is added on would make the argument win.

@JiggityJack5

P1: People want to be liked instantly. (They don't want to be observed then have a judgement made.)

P2: People who observe then make a judgment are resented.

C: Imprudent to appear prudent. (This just means it's not a good idea to appear thoughtful/observing.)

AC E: Imprudent to make people resent you. (It is not a good idea to make people resent you. Take this as fact and connect it to P2.)

@ReaganHaydon

Tania thinks art criticism can be unbiased because she thinks it's a passion that cannot be separate from emotion.

Monique thinks the best art critics eventually shed all of their bias and use general principles before rendering a take. (she doesn't think the best can be unbiased, she thinks they are.)

I genuinely do not see how this argument has a single "main conclusion."

Also, "human psychology is still driven primarily by personal interaction," seems to support both the IC and MC at the same time.

Even when breaking it down in different ways it still makes sense.

Because

human psychology is still driven primarily by personal interaction

Therefore

The important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude.

Because

The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.

This makes sense. Now let's try another way.

Because

the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude.

Therefore

The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.

Because

human psychology is still driven primarily by personal interaction

This also makes sense.

Even setting up the argument as P1 +P2/IC then MC makes sense if the sandwich structure seems off.

What am I missing here? It feels like I'm being gaslight into thinking that I was obviously suppose to see the the first sentence was the correct MC.

@ZestyDevotedUnion The fact that there is not support for the claim means that it's not a conclusion. You have to accept it as true.

What helped me understand answer choice D was the following:

We don't know the intention behind routine non-punishment, it very well could be cases that couldn't be enforced due to negligence, good lawyers, etc.

VS.

Sometimes NOT punishing has intention. It mentions impunity in the conclusion, which means the author thinks exceptions are being made.

The issue with the argument is that it jumps from routine non-punishment to the idea of impunity in the conclusion. This is an assumption, it's a new idea presented. The author is assuming that impunity, aka exceptions, are being made when routine non-punishment occurs. The author is assuming that there is intention behind the routine non-punishment.

#1: If vote, then good standing.

#2: If dues paid, then good standing.

Thomas paid his dues, therefore he's in good standing.

This does not prove that he can vote. That is confusing necessary for sufficient. This is exactly what the argument does.

Understanding answer choice A:

"fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited and its being authorized."

not being prohibited = necessary condition because this is referring to his good standing not prohibiting him voting.

being authorized = sufficient condition because this is referring to his good standing not being sufficient, aka authorized, to allow him to vote.

Had issues understanding what A meant. I got the flaw but just couldn't wrap my head around it.

After reviewing:

Category 1: Pretzels - more time = more risk

Category 2: Caramels - more time = more risk

This correlation is true for both of them, "holds within individual categories."

The argument then compares them, aka, "holding across categories."

It says that caramel is less likely than pretzel for cavities. The argument is using a correlation that is true individually and then places that correlation where it doesn't belong.

I knew C was correct but didn't fully understand what it was saying at first. But going forward I will be better at dealing with negatives.

Easy translation: "There are no sources that are not the best and not neglected."

This means there are only 2 options, and this is the issue that the stimulus is making.

A reason that stuck with me to eliminate D is that Chang simply does not talk about it. To an extent I can see why people would pick D. Wirth does literally say, "any claim that some people are genetically predisposed to manic-depression is simply false." But, the reason this doesn't matter in regard to D is that Chang takes issue with the single vs many genes topic, not the last sentence by Wirth.

@susanatovar A is wrong because all we know is there may have been an issue with too much irrigation. Just because barley requires less water doesn't mean they will use less.

@sandman I don't see how the first sentence supports the MC. It is really just something to frame the argument so that the MC can say, "there is some wisdom to it tho." Followed by the actual support being the final sentence.