application makes the invalid argument flaw of denying or negating the sufficient condition. this yields no valid conclusions, so on the hunt for an AC that aligns with my prediction

A. author never makes any set to superset or specific to general jumps, or more specifically, any claims about consumers of a food representing consumers in general. author is specifically taking a principle and applying it (incorrectly) to to a particular instance

B. this has nothing to do with the structure of the argument; whether they're safe for human production or not is irrelevant

C. never makes any value judgements. correct me if im wrong, but had the application said "crackly crisps SHOULD not be ..." this would be a better answer #help

D. author doesn't make this assumption

E. CORRECT, matches my prediction

author concludes that ONLY harsh criticism will cause a person criticized to change

on the basis of:

harsh criticism -> unpleasant criticism -> motive (unpleasant criticism is a guaranteed way of achieving motive)

change -> motive (change requires motive)

Just because harsh criticism is sufficient (ONE of the ways to provide the motive necessary to change), doesn't mean its NECESSARY (being the only, or a REQUIRED way). Hunting for an AC that properly calls out this sufficiency necessity confusion.

A. CORRECT - matches my prediction of what the flaw is.

B. INCORRECT - it doesn't matter what the primary goal of criticism is in other cases. the author is specifically arguing for using harsh criticism over gentle criticism

C. author doesn't assume this

D. author doesn't make this confusion ... no mention or indication of avoidance

E. this isn't the flaw present in this argument. the author uses conditional reasoning as evidence, not refutation

I’d like to join!

A. irrelevant, and either way, estimating the likelihood is exactly that, an estimate.

B. exactly. the author says his conclusion MUST be the case, based solely off of a premise that supports it, rather than proves it.

C. this isn’t the flaw in the reasoning and wouldn’t make it any more or less likely for them to estimate higher than the actual statistic

D. no contradiction in the premises

E. author doesn’t do this

A. Correct, because if it were true that there were negative consequences behind avoiding dairy foods, then the conclusion that the author drew about increasing the probability of maintaining good health would be less likely to be true, as those negative consequences may impact health

B. author never claims this is the ONLY way

C. author never makes any claim as to what we should or shouldn’t do, just that doing X will increase the probability of Y consequence

D. all of the evidence is relevant

E. author never guarantees anything to occur, only makes probability statements

A. this is exactly the point the author is trying to make, so the argument doesn’t fail to consider this

B. accuracy has no relevance here

C. If they pay no attention to the news reports, the news reports don’t effect them, so this argument has nothing to do with them

D. Correct, because the author is trying to argue against the critics’ claims that negative news reports = negative views of the economy = not willing to spend money, with the premise that spending trends are closely correlated with people’s confidence in their own financial situations. in other words, the author is trying to say that people’s spending isn’t determined by the news reports or the subsequent confidence levels in the economy , rather, their spending is determined by their own finances (such as, for example, how much is in their savings. however, D brings in the idea that negative feelings about the economy make them feel pessimistic about their own finances, regardless of what their individual situations may be. An idea the author failed to consider

E. compares 2 irrelevant factors; author never mention whether they were forewarned

A. how many mental illnesses being discussed is irrelevant to the reasoning of the argument

B. this is nearly a restatement of a premise. nutritional factors is already considered under organic factors

C. yes, because if different cultures determine SIGNIFICANTLY how often or how intense the symptoms manifest themselves, it doesn’t necessarily follow that organic factors MUST be the cause of the global variation

D. author doesn’t assume this

E. author doesn’t assume this either

A. CORRECT - If the lenses permanently impacted the sight of the barn owls, that would serve as an alternative explanation as to why the owls reacted to sound the way they did

B. never makes any assumptions about all owls

C. to me, it was never established that this was a strictly human reasoning process

D. were not worried about other bird species

E. the evidence wasn’t irrelevant

A. There is no reason present in the stimulus indicating that we should believe the statistics are unreliable

B. Relies on an assumption, but not one that equally assumes the conclusion is true

C. CORRECT , if this is true, and there ARE other significant sources of lead in the area, then how can the author guarantee that his proposed premise will guarantee the evisceration of childhood lead poisoning in the area?

D. Economics are an irrelevant factor here

E. Author doesn’t assume this.

A. CORRECT - the author is flawed in concluding that a correlational relationship between reading nutrition labels and the proportion of fat calories in one’s diet determines a causal relationship

B. We have no information about the sample size

C. Not a conditional relationship, can’t be a sufficiency-necessity confusion

D. Author only assumes one explanation, and that is his own

E. Intentions aren’t relevant nor mentioned in the stimulus

Returning after struggling with this question type for quite some time. Testing in April and need to lock in for this goal score, so I will likely be commenting a bunch from here on out for my own understanding. Sorry friends!

@KevinLin Yes please!

@hannahhuynh tysm!

@hannahhuynh hey ive seen ur comments a lot, how are you making and uploading these? id like to start doing the same analyses for myself on all the questions i drill in BR

it feels insanely good to go 5 for 5 and be able to recognize the patterns more quickly omg

@KevinLin Thank you!

Why is this marked as deprecated? Should we not use it? #help #feedback