Student Question: The answer choice E says that “not located in the southern hemisphere” but doesn’t mention the “small countries.” Am I supposed to just ignore that it is not in the answer?

Tutor Answer: Yes, that's right. The correct answer doesn't need to capture all of the information in the stimulus—it typically won't. The question asks us what must be true, so all you need to look for in the answer choices is that: something that has to be true. There are often multiple inferences that can be drawn from the stimulus, but the right answer will only identify one of them. In this case, you're correct that we could also infer that there are some non-small countries in favor of a greater UN role, and that would have been a correct answer had it appeared, but the right answer in this case speaks to a different inference.

Student Question: I liked (B) and took it to mean, perhaps what will bring you long-term happiness is different from what will bring you short-term happiness. I understand (C) touches on that better, but I’m wondering how to navigate ACs when I approach them with the wrong pre-phrase?

Tutor Answer: A good general rule that would be applicable on this question concerns how to approach answer choices that describe what the argument fails to consider. This could be worded as "Fails to consider, fails to take into account, or overlooks the possibility, etc. In order for an argument to flawed in overlooking or failing to consider a possibility, that possibility has to be something that undermines the conclusion.​

To apply that framework to this question, (B) says that the argument fails to take into account the possibility that something might bring a person happiness in one moment but not in another moment. We want to test if that possibility describes something that would undermine the conclusion. The author's conclusion is simply that happiness isn't as difficult to obtain as philosophers claim it is. If the possibility in (B) were true, it would not mean that happiness is difficult to obtain; walking on the beach, which doesn't require years of effort, could still bring on happiness.​

To put it simply, the argument is not flawed in failing to take (B)'s possibility into account because that possibility would not undermine the conclusion whether it were real or not. This is a test you can apply on any answer choice that uses similar wording. You always want to check if the possibility that the argument is overlooking actually poses a problem for the conclusion.​

Student Question: Is there a way to chain this into a single lined statement? I get confused when they put a term below the chain and draw arrows. I don’t understand how to follow it. I hope this makes sense.

Tutor Answer: I assume you're asking about the 'fork' in the diagram. This is actually essential to the logic of the argument, since the meaning of the terms would change if we tried to put them all in one line of succession. This is because we have two sufficient conditions for threatening. Physically dangerous monsters are threatening, and horrific monsters are also threatening. However, there is no logical connection between horrific and physically dangerous, so we cannot chain those two variables together with an arrow.​

If it's simpler to understand, you could use an 'or' instead of a forked arrow. We know that if a monster is either horrific OR physically dangerous, then it's threatening. Either one of those conditions is sufficient to infer that a monster is threatening. You can basically understand the logic of the argument as being in one chain, except for one extra sufficient condition that's off to the side. In other words, we have the chain Revulsion --> Horrific --> Threatening, and that stands alone as a chain. We just also have to keep this extra condition in mind: Dangerous --> Threatening. All it means is that we have one more trigger that leads to threatening.

Student Question: Is the phrase “good hunters can kill prey that weigh up to 1/2 their body weight” referring to “most” or “all?” When nothing is there (no quantifier), what would it be?

Tutor Answer: When there's a lack of a specific quantifier, as in this case, we would treat it as an "all" statement, or a sufficient condition. The rule "Good hunters can kill prey that weigh up to half their body weight" is applicable to all good hunters. A simple test is to consider whether it can be worded as an 'if-then' statement. In this case, the rule can be worded as "if it's a good hunter, then it can kill prey that way up to half its body weight".

Student Question: Can you give me an example of what would have to change to make C right? To me, it reads as a generalization and potential implications, because nothing is stated outright. There are a lot of “may” and “probably”, but nothing directly saying “this happens”.

Tutor Answer: Roughly speaking, (C) gets the relationship backwards. The author cites relatively specific examples (police, politicians, and newspapers) to support a broader conclusion about the use of crime statistics in general. (C) describes an argument citing an assumption about a general principle to make a point.​

If (C) were correct, the argument might look something like "You can't trust statistics from the police, since records often merely reflect the motives of those who compile them". In this example, the author would be citing a generalization (records often reflect motives) and describes an implication of that generalization (you can't trust stats from police).​

Student Question: I am super confused how we chained this question.

Tutor Answer: I'll walk through the steps one at a time to demonstrate how we arrived at the conditional chain in the explanation.​

The first sentence says "People cannot devote themselves to the study of natural processes unless they have leisure". "Unless" is a group 3 indicator, meaning we negate what follows it and place it in the sufficient spot to arrive at /Leisure --> /Devote. Essentially, this tells us that Leisure is a necessary condition for devoting oneself to the study of natural processes (the contrapositive being Devote --> Leisure).​

The second sentence says "people have leisure when resources are plentiful, not when resources are scarce", which tells us that plentiful resources are a necessary condition for leisure (Leisure --> Plentiful). The next step would simply be chaining the two conditional statements together: Devote --> Leisure --> Plentiful.​

Then, at the end of the stimulus, we're told that the discovery of agriculture was "the result of the active study of natural processes", which triggers the condition chain by giving us Devote. From this, we can infer that those who discovered agriculture must have had access to plentiful resources, an inference which is captured by (C).​

Student Question: So is choice D wrong b/c McG could have one of the attributes (architect or 15 years experience) but he could also have neither? Like the only thing we know is that he doesn’t have both attributes?

Tutor Answer: Yes, that's correct. We know that Yerxes is more qualified because he has both attributes: he's an architect and he's been on the committee for fifteen years. We don't necessarily know that McGuiness has neither of these traits, only that he's less qualified. This could mean he has one but not the other. Since that possibility remains open, (D) cannot be properly inferred.

Student Question: What are some strategies of catching things that may be implicit/when ACs are difficult to parse like this one? Is it more so a matter of eliminating the other four and being okay not feeling super confident in the chosen one?

Tutor Answer: For a PAI question like this one, I would recommend starting with contrasting the two conclusions: it's clear that Jenkins and Lurano disagree on what months the research should be conducted during. On an easier question, that may be the only step required to find the right answer. On a harder question, you'll need to go one layer deeper. After identifying contrasting conclusions, explain why each author arrived at their respective conclusion.​

Jenkins uses the likelihood of researching being successful as support. Lurano uses the risk of exposure as support. Neither one of the speakers refutes the fact content of the other's support, so we can infer that they disagree on the value hierarchy (how important is successful research versus safety). Jenkins thinks success is more important, whereas Lurano thinks safety is. From this, we can arrive at (E).​

To summarize, here are the steps I would recommend. Identify the contrast between conclusions. To go one step further, identify why each speaker draws their conclusion and contrast what each uses for support.

Student Question: If the stimulus was this, would answer D be right? “However, there are many so-called "sibling species," which are indistinguishable on the basis of their appearance but cannot interbreed and are separate species. Since the typological theory does not count sibling species as separate species, it is unacceptable.”

Tutor Answer: If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be asking about a hypothetical version of the argument where the classification of sibling species is established as fact rather than merely being asserted as fact by the mainstream theory. In that case, (D) would be descriptively accurate: the problem with (D) as it stands is that the sibling classification isn't actually established as a fact.

However, though it would be descriptively accurate, it's a bit ambiguous as to whether that would constitute a flaw in the argument or not. It might be valid to discard a theory because it fails to account for a fact. That hypothetical argument would contain an assumption—that an incompatible fact is enough to show a theory to be unacceptable—but it's a bit murky whether that's an unfounded assumption or not. In that case, the flaw would at least be much more subtle than the flaw in the actual stimulus.

Student Question: When it comes to this question, why are we focused on the idea of “that we should change a view.” being in captured in the Answer choices? why not other aspects of passage A?

Tutor Answer: Answer (C) captures a bit more than just changing a view. The method of reasoning also matches. Passage A argues that a view should be changed because it's based on a false assumption (that rational people freely choose actions). The support for the argument in (C) parallels this since it also cites a false assumption (what concepts children can grasp). The first part of the passage outlines the mistaken assumption, then the last paragraph contains the author's prescription, so arguing for a view change in light of a false assumption broadly captures the argument from the passage.

Student Question: The question stem is asking us to pick the author's tone in relation to passage A? Because I was not expecting the answer choice to be disengaged. If anything, I thought Passage A was more supportive and firm with their idea,s and Passage B would have detached with their ideas.

Tutor Answer: You're exactly right, so the answer to your question lies in the interpretation of the question stem. The question says that passage B differs from passage A in that Passage B is more ____. In that sentence, passage B is the subject, so the right answer will describe the tone of passage B.

Student Question: I need a better explanation for PT132.S4.Q16 please

Tutor Answer: I'll start with a basic summary of the argument. The author establishes that there are two types of etching tools: pin-tipped ones and bladed ones. Pin-tipped tools are always used for engraving, whereas bladed tools sometimes are and sometimes are not. The author then concludes that most etching tools are used for engraving.​​

Etching Tool --> Pin-Tipped OR Bladed​

Pin-Tipped --> Engraving​

Bladed <-some-> Engraving​Bladed <-some-> /Engraving

_______________________________​

Etching Tools most--> Engraving​

The problem with the argument is that we don't know how many of each kind of tool there are. There could be a far greater number of bladed tools than there are pin-tipped tools. If 99% of etching tools are bladed, while only 1% are pin-tipped, then the conclusion wouldn't follow. In that situation, the majority of etching tools could still not be used for engraving.​

With that in mind, we're looking for an answer that tells us that there are either more or the same amount of pin-tipped tools as there are bladed tools, because if that were true, then we could conclude that most etching tools are used for engraving. (B) provides this information: If there are at least as many pin-tipped tools as there are bladed ones, then over 50% of the tools must be used for engraving.

Student Question: The premise that “the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant” is a necessary condition that the author uses as a sufficient condition to conclude that fifteenth century Europeans did not have a greater mastery of painting.

Tutor Answer: There isn't actually any conditional logic in this stimulus. the statement “the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant” is not a necessary condition or requirement for anything else. In order for it to be accurate to describe this claim as a necessary condition for an argument being inadequate, we would need the condition: If an argument is inadequate, then it must be the case that the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant. There's no indication that this must be true of an argument in order for it to be inadequate, so we cannot properly describe this as a necessary condition.

Student Question: I am having some difficult mapping the stimulus along with (A) and (E). Would it be possible to get a lawgic map for them?

Tutor Answer: Here's how you could diagram the stimulus:

​ ​Statistical Analysis <-some-> Physical Sciences

​Mental Events --> /Replicated --> /Statistical Analysis

________________________________________________

Mental Events --> /Physical Sciences ​

Here's how answer (E) could be similarly diagrammed: ​ ​

Narrative <-some-> Explain

Ancient Events --> /Details --> /Narrative __________________________________________ ​

Ancient Events --> /Explain ​

The first statement might not seem like it strictly translates to a "some" statement, but it can be understood as such. If narratives are a good way to explain historical events, then we can understand that as telling us that some historical explanations are narratives.

Student Question: Should we not be thrown off by the “many” in answer choice (B), the correct answer, though there is no indication that Garber would describe this group as many people? Should I just treat “many” as “some,” like I would in LR, and be fine with the AC?

Tutor Answer: In general, "many" can be treated the same way as "some'—the phrase "many A's are B's" simply implies that there is overlap between groups A and B, which is the same relationship that would be indicated by a "some" statement.​

For this particular question, the word "many" if perfectly fine because the answer is essentially hypothetical. (B) is saying that many people could have expected to recoup their costs, so it's not actually claiming that any number of people did recoup their costs. The passage gives us a principle (earnings derivable from the millions of bulbs descendent from the original bulbs can be very high, even if each individual descendent bulb commands a very low price), which gives support for the claim that some people could have hypothetically expected to recoup their costs.

Student Question: The answer choice made sense, but I did not choose it because the language seemed too strong. Should I always be wary of overly strong wording in the answer choice? When is it ok, because this question, the correct answer choice has strong wording.

Tutor Answer: This is an excellent question because it gets at the heart of your task on Sufficient Assumption questions. On SA questions, it's not possible for an answer choice to be 'too strong.' The goal here is to find an assumption that's sufficient for proving the conclusion, so it's perfectly fine for an answer choice to be overkill. These question types are kind of similar to strengthen questions in the sense that we're trying to find an answer that supports the conclusion. If an answer is stronger or broader than we need to to be, it wouldn't be necessary, but it could still very well be sufficient to prove the conclusion.​

An important side note: this tip does not apply to Necessary Assumption questions. That's the key difference between the two. For NA, you're looking for what the argument requires, so you don't want to pick something too strong. For SA, you're looking for something that's enough to prove the conclusion, so it's perfectly fine for an answer to be extra strong.

Student Question: The stim is talking about patients, and it is a common wrong answer choice to change the audience we are talking about (i.e patients to animals). If I thought through E and eliminated it, I genuinely would have been stuck not knowing what to pick. How is this common wrong answer choice the correct one in this case? What if the side effects in lab animals don’t equal side effects in humans?

Tutor Answer: In general, this kind of answer choice would be wrong if the subject had no relevance to the stimulus at all, but in this case, it does have relevance. If a medication produces harmful side effects in the animals it's tested on, then it would be reasonable to assume that there's at least some risk of it producing harmful effects in patients. To be a correct Weaken answer, it doesn't have to totally wreck the argument—the right answer will often open the door for a potential weakener.​

One further point, the stimulus doesn't actually specify whether humans are receiving the medication; it just says "patients". Technically, this term could apply to animals as well (maybe it's a veterinary medication). Once again, the answer doesn't have to 100% destroy the argument; it just needs to make the conclusion less likely to be true.

In short, (A) is correct because there's a reasonable connection between lab animals, which are intended to serve as test subjects for medications, and the potential effects the medication will produce in patients.

Student Question: Even after hearing the explanation, I don’t understand how A is wrong. I interpreted “A” to mean that earth didn’t pass through cosmic dust earlier than 800k years ago so it practically does not nothing to the argument because so what if earth didn't pass through cosmic dust before the 800k year mark? it doesn't explain what is happening after the 800k year mark?

Tutor Answer: (A) strengthens the argument by eliminating a possibility that would undermine the hypothesis. Imagine if (A) were not true. We know that the ice ages began 800,000 years ago, so if Earth passed through cosmic dust before that time, then why would the ice age have not started earlier? If Earth had passed through a dust cloud 1 million years ago, but an ice age didn't start 1 million years ago, then it would seem that passing through a cosmic dust cloud does not produce an ice age.​

In case that's still unclear, I can try explaining it another way. The argument is claiming that A caused B (A is the dust cloud, B is the ice age). If there were an example of A occurring without B, then it would seem that A does not actually produce the effect of B. Answer (A) eliminates this possibility by telling us that A did not occur without B, thereby strengthening the causal connection between the two.

Student Question: Why does the stimulus not say its flawed if it is a flawed argument?

Tutor Answer: For Parallel Method questions, the argument in the stimulus may or may not be flawed—it's helpful to determine whether the logic holds or not. Regardless of whether the argument in the stim is flawed or not, the task is still the same: to find the answer choice that most closely parallels the stimulus.​

So in general, keep in mind that the Parallel Method question stem does not necessarily imply that the stimulus is a good argument—it may very well be flawed.​

Student Question: Doesn’t some mean/can mean 1 person did said thing. In that interpretation, is this not a really weak if not non-existent flaw?

Tutor Answer: I'll try to illustrate the flaw with a simpler example that hopefully makes the problem a bit more clear:​​

All of the highest-scoring LSAT students drink water. So any student who drinks water is sure to get a high LSAT score.

​See the problem? Everyone drinks water—that's not unique to the highest-scoring students. Similarly, the advertisement in the stimulus fails to consider the possibility that other participants in the study who followed the special diet failed to lose weight, just like there are some students who drink water but still get low LSAT scores. Answer (D) describes this flaw regardless of whether it uses the word "some" or not.​

Further, the conclusion is that anyone who follows the diet is sure to lose weight, so even if there is just one or two exceptions, that would still undermine the conclusion. This is why the use of "some" isn't a problem for (D).

@breezyprabahar944 Hello! I'm a tutor here at 7Sage. Answer (D) doesn't go against a premise because the study establishes that those who lost the most weight followed the diet model. It doesn't establish whether anyone else followed the model or not. (D) introduces the possibility that other participants, those who did not lose the most weight, also followed the model, which undermines the conclusion.

Student Question: I just wanted to understand the conditionality of the AC when using the MBT test. When I translate AC E to conditional language I have: /abandon use of fertilizers → /farmers grow GM crops. Now, when comparing this AC with the stim, I don’t see where “/abandon use of fertilizers” is triggered. I’m confused in the sense that I don’t see the sufficient condition necessarily triggering (or is “farmers grow GM crops” exactly the assumption that the argument is making?).

Tutor Answer: Here's how I would map the logic of this stimulus:

No Green-Manure --> Poor Soil ___________________________________

Chemical Fertilizers --> Poor Soil

Necessary Assumption: Chemical Fertilizers --> No Green Manure

With this structure, we can see that the argument assumes a link between Chemical Fertilizers and No Green Manure (Chemical Fertilizers --> No Green Manure). This actually matches the prediction you described, though I worded it a bit differently to hopefully make the connection more clear.

For NA questions, the right answer does not have to be sufficient for the conclusion to follow, but it can be (certain assumptions can be both necessary and sufficient). In this case, the CF --> /GM link it necessary because if it didn't exist, then the support for the conclusion would be undermined.

Student Question: If heckling is “usually only fun for the heckler.”, how is that entertaining? It seems that Chapman would not agree it is entertaining, in fact it seems he would think it is not entertaining because it is not fun for anyone.

Tutor Answer: Chapman would not necessarily agree that it's entertaining—it would be more accurate to say that Chapman does not state an opinion on this. Chapman says that heckling is usually only fun for the heckler, but (C) refers to the best stand-up comedians. Chapman thinks that, in most normal situations, heckling isn't fun for the audience. However, the word "usually" leaves room for some exceptions, so we don't know that Chapman would say that even the best comedians can't respond entertainingly.

Student Question: It says the reasoning is flawed because it “ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars“ but doesn’t that explain why insurance companies think “overall, a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other color.” I don’t understand how this is a flaw in reasoning, it seems like the reason the insurance companies would think this.

Tutor Answer: Fundamentally, this is a causation-correlation fallacy. The color red correlates with car accidents, so the argument implicitly assumes that the color red causes accidents. The argument is failing to consider a countless number of alternative causes for the correlation, with (C) describing one of those potential alternative causes: driver recklessness.​

It's important to keep the conclusion in mind. The author claims that lives would be saved in red cars were banned from the road. This implies that the author believes the color red is causing the accidents. However, (C) acknowledges the possibility that it's actually driver recklessness that causes accidents, and reckless drivers simply have a preference for red cars. If driver recklessness is the real cause behind the accidents, then there's no reason to believe that banning red cars from the road would reduce accidents—the reckless drivers would still be out there.

Student Question: How does the logical connective go from ‘many’ to ‘some’

Tutor Answer: In the realm of conditional reasoning, many is treated the same as some. As long as the quantifier doesn't denote a majority (which would be a most statement), you can diagram it as some. This includes phrases like a number of, many, a few, etc. Essentially, a some diagram just indicates that there is some level of overlap between two groups; this overlap could be described in a number of different ways, but can simply be diagrammed with a some statement.