RRE Except Question

Generally RRE is one of my favorites. Each answer should help explain the argument be it by 70% or .01%. The one that does nothing at all or makes the problem in the stimulus worse is the wrong answer. These types of arguments really can throw whatever they want to at you. I use RRE Excepts to make sure that I am correctly identifying the RRE answers. I just consider it practice for the question type.

So the Stimulus lays out a problem and we have to figure out what things explain that problem to the best of our ability.

A) The survey sample was not representative of the voters who voted on the proposition. This totally helps explain why the poll takers opinions and the real life result don't match up. The poll takers did not adequately represent the members of the voting population.

B) Many of the people who were surveyed did not respond truthfully to all of the questions put to them. Okay so they said they. were going to vote for x in the poll but really they were lying and they are going to go out and vote for y. That would totally make the results not match the poll.

C) The proposition was only part of a more expensive community improvement program that voters had to accept or reject in total. So maybe yeah they would vote for the things listed in the poll but it was mashed up with so many other things that they didn't like that it wasn't worth it. Or maybe those extras would have raised the cost for the person too much for them to want to vote for it in real life.

D) A proposition for increasing funds for local drug treatment centers also failed to win approval. Okay so the poll looked at two things. Our discrepancy that we are trying to explain is in between one of those poll items and the real life results not matching up. So does the passing or failure of the other poll item matter for why the first one had a discrepancy? No.

E) The proposition to raise taxes for schools was couched in terminology that many of the voters found confusing. Did not understand if voting yes or no was actually going in the right direction for what they wanted due to confusing language.

NA

Things that I have learned about NA questions: The right answer is favorable to the authors argument. If it is a neccasery assumption then the argument directly needs the information to be true to work. It is unlikely that something that could harm the argument would be needed for the argument to work. Negated these answers must harm the argument and it is a good test to see if it is the correct answer. The correct answer choice must also be descriptively accurate (Primary, Solely and Mainly are suspicious).

1. Biologists to inject 10 mils of hormones in deer.

2. Critics think unsafe for people who eat venison (deer).

3. Biologist replies with 10 mils a day is a safe amount for people. (notice exact amount they are dosing the deer with is what she okays as safe).

4. They also assume that people won't eat a full deer by themselves in one day to get that full 10 mil dose.

So do we know what amount over 10 mils is safe? no. Maybe 10.00001 is the unsafe deadly amount. So the first Question I have is does the deer already have this hormone in its system? I am just thinking of humans where both sexes have estrogen and testosterone present in their body already and there is just more of one depending on the persons biology. The deer already having any in its system may bring the total up to higher than the known safe levels per amount that a person would eat in one meal.

A) People would be notified of the time when deer in their area were to be treated with the hormone. Okay to make this answer work we have to add our own assumptions and make up our own little story (like people will all see the notice and won't hunt those deer so everyone will be safe like the argument wants) Even if we get distracted trying to make this answer work does this entire things still have to be true for the argument to work? No. Even if we help this answer out it still will fail the must be true test for an NA.

B) The hormone that would be injected into the deer is chemically similar to hormones used in human contraceptives. This is completely out of the scope. We don't care about this our tying our deer birth control to any other species. MBT does nothing to this because it is so out of scope it could be true or false and it wouldn't matter for the argument to be able to stand on its own two legs.

C) Hunting season for deer could be scheduled so that it would not coincide with breeding season. Maybe this is true maybe it isn't. This is more on topic but it isn't really dealing with the groundwork that our premises lay when they discuss the actual safety of the treatment in question. it does not engage the argument structure it is just a parallel line of thinking about the problem of keeping people who eat deer safe and capping the deer population. It is not MBT for our way of treating the deer. You can also test this answer by negating it and seeing that if it said "Hunting season for deer cannot be scheduled outside of the deers breeding season" That does nothing to weaken the argument about if people physically can become sick from eating the treated deer. (Think about poachers.)

D) The hormone in question does not occur naturally in the female deer that would be injected. So this would mean that the only amount of the hormone in the deer population would be the 10 mils the biologist shoots them with. That means we are all safe if we eat it and everyone is happy. This MBT. If we negate it then it reveals the problem we predicted and weakens the argument.

E)  Most people do not consider deer meat to be part of their daily diet and eat it only on rare occasions. So what? We care about the safety of eating it in general not that it is some fancy dinner or in season item.

Misc question

Breakdown:

1. If item is exclusive then they can sell rapidly even though expensive.

2. Selling cheaply can hurt the appeal of the item. (people assume /Exclusive)

3. Sellers don't know individuals perfect price for this item to gauge high or low.

4. So (conclusion) seller should err on the high side.

So really there are two options set price low or set price high because the argument assumes you can never hit the perfect price. Setting it too low may bring questions of the items authenticity (drawback). They don't give a drawback for the other side of the argument (selling high). The also don't give positives for either (they didn't say if you set high it always sells in a day or people will have bidding wars and you will get more). So out of everything we know about this answer we have two sides, 1 sides drawback, and nothing else.

It can look like this:

Negative Positive

Low Price Maybe fake -------

High Price -------- -------

For example:

If the argument had a positive for a high priced item they could have said anything that is the highest priced is almost always certified real. Then we could say the pricy ones have an advantage.

If the argument gave another premise saying fakes are usually recognizable if people study the photographs well and therefore are easily avoided then there is a positive for buying the cheap item (you can if the questionable item is real if you study it)

If there is a premise that said in the high priced market the fakes are usually high quality enough to be indistinguishable in photographs then that is a negative for the high priced side.

The reason I bring this up is to show that they only gave one major drawback and that we can target the rest of those potential areas as a place where we can weaken or strengthen the argument easily.

In this question however the answer is simply to notice the that the question is doing this when looking at the alternative.

Strengthen (Manufacturer)

Split Method - read one person see if they have an opinion on the topic. if they don't cross out the answer. If they do note for positive or negative. Read 2nd persons statement and see if they have an opinion. Note positive or negative. Point at issue is disagree (agree is rare). See where they disagree and that is your answer. I tend to read through the entirety of the lower level easy Disagree questions but once you start getting longer ones or into the 18+ numbered questions this is the safer method.

Consumer Advocate (CA): Manufacturers are misleading in labeling. Ex: fresh meaning to them is unprocessed yet it can be used on processed food labels.

Manufacturer (M): Fudging the definitions is not misleading. Fresh can have more than one meaning. You can't force us to use common definitions without proper laws.

The difference is CA thinks they should be using words in the specific ways they are defined even without laws. M thinks they can be more ambiguous with definitions because there are not laws to stop them.

Make sure that you don't blow past the stimulus and that you focus on the right argument.

A) In the absence of government definitions for terms used in product labeling, common standards of understanding alone should apply. This is perfect for argument #1. Unfortunately, we need the 2nd argument.

B) Government standards for truthful labeling should always be designed to reflect common standards of understanding. This is a prescriptive statement (perfect world, should) about how the government standards should be set up. If anything this is benefiting the first persons argument.

C) People should be free, to the extent that it is legal to do so, to exploit to their advantages the inherent ambiguity and vagueness in language. Being free to exploit the ambiguity of words. This is great and perfect for strengthening the manufacturer's argument.

D) When government standards and common standards for truthful labeling are incompatible with each other, the government standards should always take precedence. This does nothing for anyone. The issue here is that it says government rules should win and over common usage but government rules are so ill defined that we aren't really gaining anything from this. We also don't know if this is a situation where government rules and common ones are even conflicting (because the gov is so ill defined).

E) In their interpretation of language, consumers should never presume that vagueness indicates an attempt to deceive on the part of manufacturers unless those manufacturers would reap large benefits from successful deception. A conditional statement about when vagueness indicates an attempt to deceive. This is negative towards the argument that we are trying to strengthen. It is also functioning based off the structure of argument 1 not argument 2. Overall just having a general rule about when you can think the manufacturers are being deceptive is sort of irrelevant anyways (arg 1 just rules them as being deceptive).

Point at Issue

Split Method - read one person see if they have an opinion on the topic. if they don't cross out the answer. If they do note for positive or negative. Read 2nd persons statement and see if they have an opinion. Note positive or negative. Point at issue is disagree (agree is rare). See where they disagree and that is your answer. I tend to read through the entirety of the lower level easy Disagree questions but once you start getting longer ones or into the 18+ numbered questions this is the safer method.

Consumer Advocate (CA): Manufacturers are misleading in labeling. Ex: fresh meaning to them is unprocessed yet it can be used on processed food labels.

Manufacturer (M): Fudging the definitions is not misleading. Fresh can have more than one meaning. You can't force us to use common definitions without proper laws.

The difference is CA thinks they should be using words in the specific ways they are defined even without laws. M thinks they can be more ambiguous with definitions because there are not laws to stop them.

A) In the absence of government standards, common understanding is the arbiter of deceptive labeling practices. No laws use common understanding totally CA's point. Manufacturer thinks this is stupid. This is the disagreement.

B) Truthful labeling practices that reflect common standards of usage can be established by the government. No one says truthful so we have to make the jump that definitions that are not misleading would fit and that only goes with one persons argument. ignoring that, this is saying the government can decide the definitions of words in labeling. This concept is not mentioned by either of speaker.

C) The term “fresh” when it is applied to food products is commonly understood to mean pure and unprocessed. This one is harder. CA agrees as this is explicitly stated. B says other definitions exist but he never actually counters that this definition doesn't exist. In fact he never speaks on that point.

D) Terms that apply to natural foods can be truthfully applied to packaged foods. Edible is a term. that could apply to either item. Neither is speaking on having a harsh split in between words that can be used in processed food packaging and fresh food packaging. This is not going on and neither person has an opinion.

E) Clear government standards for labeling food products will ensure truthful labeling practices. Again with truthful. Ignoring that, this is very similar to b but where b simply says it is possible E says it is ensured (sufficient).

Weakener

This is a conditional reasoning argument so find any gaps and target them.

1. Requirements for Dean respected and competent with computers (D->R&C)

2. If academically respected dean then have doctorate (R->Doc)

3. competently oversee computers then knows about computers (C->kComp)

4. Dean must be from school staff. (D->S)

5. Dean must be a Professor from the computer science dept. (D->CSDept)(Conclusion)

So logically we have

D->R->Doc

->C->kComp

->S

----------

D->PCSDept (PCSDept part of S so that's fine)

The LSAT likes to go for the longest chain my target would be D->Doc or D->kComp and try to show that there are people who aren't in the CS Dept who can have those requirements. The argument assumes that one or more of their requirements for a dean can only be filled by the people within the computer science department. This is an area we can target. What if the janitor holds a Doctorate and knows about computers but just decided to become a janitor for the hell of it. Technically the nerdy janitor would be qualified.

A) There are members of this university’s staff who hold doctoral degrees and who are not professors but who really know about computers. Exactly the prediction. Pick and move on. Save the time.

B) There are members of this university’s philosophy department who do not hold doctoral degrees but who really know about computers. These people fail the doctorate requirement so this doesn't weaken anything because they are not eligible.

C) Computer science professors who hold doctoral degrees but who are not members of this university’s staff have applied for the position of dean of computing. We don't care. These people are failing a requirement by not being on school staff. They can do whatever they want and it doesn't weaken why the people with the requirements needed must come out of the professors in the computer science department.

D) Several members of the board of trustees of this university do not hold doctoral degrees. 1. We don't know if the position of Dean of computing is a part of the board of trustees positions. 2. Even is we assumed it was we don't care that other people on that board don't have doctorates. Maybe those people have different requirements but we know our requirements and endpoint and this doesn't touch anything in our argument.

E) Some members of the computer science department at this university are not respected by academics in other departments. 1. Some could just be one guy. I also don't like the difference in between academic staff and academics in other departments because I feel like we have to assume that the academic staff covers all academics in the school but what if the argument only cares about the department. This is not defined well and does not really weaken the argument. If this was an all statement it would be better but then you would really have to decided what to do about the ambiguity in the last part of the answer.

NA

Things that I have learned about NA questions: The right answer is favorable to the authors argument. If it is a neccasery assumption then the argument directly needs the information to be true to work. It is unlikely that something that could harm the argument would be needed for the argument to work. Negated these answers must harm the argument and it is a good test to see if it is the correct answer. The correct answer choice must also be descriptively accurate which is where B, C, and D fail. E is harder to target because you can accept the first part but we don't know that it is the main motivation (Primary, Solely and Mainly are suspicious)

1. Requirements for Dean respected and competent with computers (D->R&C)

2. If academically respected dean then have doctorate (R->Doc)

3. competently oversee computers then knows about computers (C->kComp)

4. Dean must be from school staff. (D->S)

5. Dean must be a Professor from the computer science dept. (D->CSDept)(Conclusion)

So logically we have

D->R->Doc

->C->kComp

->S

----------

D->CSDept (CSDept part of S so that's fine)

So if the argument thinks that the dean has to come from the computer science department then they must think that one or more of their requirements for a dean can only be filled by the people within the computer science department. Because the LSAT likes to go for the longest chain my target would be D->Doc or D->kComp. It is a computer heavy argument so I am going for kComp.

A) Academics respect only people who hold doctoral degrees. This is close to a premise but not quite. We know the only deans that are respected are those with doctorates. We don't know about the group of people that academics respect as a whole and we don't need this to get to the conclusion. Does not pass the MBT or negation test.

B) All of this university’s professors have obtained doctoral degrees. This actually could make the pool of selectable people bigger. The only issue is it does not further state that only the computer profs know computers so we can't use it. We have to get to the end point of only drawing from the pool of people in the computer science department. Does not pass the MBT or negation test.

C) At this university, every professor who holds a doctoral degree in computer science really knows about computers. So of 99% of professors with doctorates pass this. Then what? We don't need every professor for the argument to work. Does not pass the MBT or negation test.

D) All academics who hold doctoral degrees are respected by their academic colleagues. Same concept as C. Negated this looks like 99/100 still are respected doctors. Does not pass the MBT or negation test.

E) Among this university’s staff members with doctoral degrees, only those in the computer science department really know about computers. This is perfect. It must be true for the argument to reach the new concept in the conclusion. There are two things that could have been used to get to the computer science department 1. doctorates 2. knowing about computers. This answer uses both of them and perfectly round out the argument.

@Peter Bound It is rare for me to see someone with my last name.

Strengthen

1. distemper killed 2/3 seal pop

2. can't only blame distemper (Conclusion)

3. Must be reason distemper won (blames pollution increase)

So this argument is basically saying that distemper killed them but there has to be some reason why the distemper hit them so hard and the author points to pollution as that reason. We will likely have to strengthen the causal tie in between distemper deaths being caused by pollution somehow. Yeah there are a lot of ways to strengthen an argument but casual stories can use any little detail in their favor was a strengthening link and this one doesn't have much to help it yet.

A) At various times during the last ten years, several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea have experienced unprecedentedly steep drops in population. - Other species in this polluted sea are having part of their population randomly die off. Ok so maybe it is something in the area causing it -like the pollution.

B) By reducing pollution at its source, Northern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead in preventing pollution from reaching the waters of the North Sea. Other places that are entirely unconnected are cleaning up pollution. No connections to pollution and animals just cleaning. Does nothing for our argument about our seals in a different place.

C) For many years, fish for human consumption have been taken from the waters of the North Sea. That's great. For many years is how long? Before or after pollution? Steady factor? This doesn't help us connect our pollution in our area to our seals it just says that other things are in the area and taking some fish out of the environment.

D) There are two species of seal found throughout the North Sea area, the common seal and the gray seal. Do we care about the species of seals dying off? No. This would have to have more to help the argument. Like saying that although there are several types of seals the same proportion in each species is suffering from distemper (effectively blocking the potential of one species of seals being more inclined to get distemper).

E) The distemper caused by the virus was a disease that was new to the population of North Sea seals in May 1988, and so the seals’ immune systems were unprepared to counter it. This makes it super likely that is was the distemper alone that caused the problem which is the opposite of what the author is arguing. The author is arguing that the distemper alone is not the issue and something else has to be a causal factor for why these seals are getting sick.

NA

Things that I have learned about NA questions: The right answer is favorable to the authors argument. If it is a neccasery assumption then the argument directly needs the information to be true to work. It is unlikely that something that could harm the argument would be needed for the argument to work. Negated these answers must harm the argument and it is a good test to see if it is the correct answer. The correct answer choice must also be descriptively accurate which is where B, C, and D fail. E is harder to target because you can accept the first part but we don't know that it is the main motivation (Primary, Solely and Mainly are suspicious)

1. distemper killed 2/3 seal pop

2. can't only blame distemper (Conclusion)

3. Must be reason distemper won (blames pollution increase)

A) There has been a gradual decline in the seal population of the North Sea during the past two centuries. This doe not connect at all to the author trying to tie an increase in distemper deaths to pollution. Irrelevant.

B) No further sources of pollution have been added since May 1988 to the already existing sources of pollution in the North Sea. Does this do anything to the idea that the pollution that was already there jumpstarted the higher distemper deaths? No, this is also irrelevant.

C) There was no sudden mutation in the distemper virus which would have allowed the virus successfully to attack healthy North Sea seals by May 1988. This is needed. The author is trying to say this thing (distemper deaths) are caused at least in part by another thing (pollution). This is blocking another cause from being the reason that the seals were susceptible to distemper. If that cause wasn't blocked then there would be a question as to which thing really caused it which would hurt the authors argument.

D) Pollution in the North Sea is no greater than pollution in the Mediterranean Sea, off the coast of North America, or in the Sea of Japan. Not to be mean but we really don't care about those other places. They are irrelevant to the issues going on in the area we are focusing on.

E) Some species that provide food for the seals have nearly become extinct as a result of the pollution. This is more tempting because it makes you picture starving weakened seals. The thing is the "some" species. If that species is only 5% of their total food supply I doubt the seals are going to be that harmed by the lack of fish. This answer forces you to assume that the lack of certain species negatively impact the seals to an extent that the distemper virus is more easily obtained. You have to make that whole little causal story jump up in your head to make this answer work. That is a problem. The correct answer should not need any more of a jump than a single piece of knowledge a fifth grader has. Ex. I left my ice cream in the sun on an average day and it melted. Therefore the sun contributed to the melting ice cream. The jump here is the sun can warm things up which is bad for ice cream. That level of universal knowledge is okay. Full blown causal stories are not.

SA

find a missing piece in between premises or rarer and easier start the chain reaction.

1. As many trees in S as in M

So from this S has equal to or more trees.

You can predict but when I did this I saw them as two separate entities and did not predict the correct answer prior to reading through them.

A) More trees were planted in Seclee in the past two years than in Martown. If they start at 0 trees this could be correct but the fact is we don't know the starting amount so matron could have 100 trees and planted 1 while Seclee could have planted 50 and started with 0. that would leave matron at 101 and Seclee at 50 which isn't true for the argument.

B) Seclee is the region within which Martown is located. If this is true then the information in the stimulus has to follow. Say Martown has 100 trees. Seclee has 9 other towns in the jurisdiction and those all have 100 more trees, then Seclee has at least as many trees. Say out of the 10 towns in Seclee Matron is the only one with trees, then Seclee will have at least as many trees as Martown.

C) Martown is suffering from an epidemic of tree-virus infection. This gives us 0 information about Seclee and if they are connected in a way where Seclee will always have at least as many trees. Easy scratch out. We don't are about tree health just tree numbers.

D) The average annual rainfall for Seclee is greater than the average annual rainfall for Martown. Rainfall is like tree health. It does absolutely nothing for the argument.

E) The average number of trees cut down annually in Martown is higher than in Seclee. Seclee could have 100,000 trees and Martown could have 100. Martown could have 100,000 trees and Seclee could have 100. The fact that Martown is chopping down trees gives us nothing to conclusively prove that Seclee has at least as many as Martown.

Flaw

-The argument has to be doing whatever is claimed

-the claim has to be a flaw (wrong)

1. committee made to study academic problems

2. students using time to play sports instead of studying (causal blames lack of time for grades)

3. told not to play sports

4. assumes that it will fix their grades

This argument has a major issue that is suspicious

-it assumes that the time will be used for studying

then it treats time like it is sufficient for better grades. Based on the argument we can tell that the students need adequate time to study so time to study is a necessary condition for good grades. That does not imply that having time will be sufficient for better grades.

A) some students who spend time on sports do not have academic problems This is fine the stimulus says many students. Even if we look at this like a correlation of students between students who have academic issues and those who play sports an outlier would be okay.

B) all students who do well academically do so because of time saved by not participating in sports. okay so if we look at this answer it is focusing on all people who do well academically. Potentially large diverse group. Then it is assuming those people are doing well because they are not spending time on sports (so must not be anyone in our failing sports kids group). This just isn't the people the argument cares about. The argument only cares about people in sports that are doing poorly.

C) at least some of the time the students will save by not participating in sports will be spent on solving their academic problems. This is perfect. The director thinks that if he stops those kids from playing sports they will use that time to study. The director is making an assumption there. How does he know they will study? What if they stop caring about school after they find out they can't play and just binge watch tv shows with their newfound time.

D) no students who do well academically spend time on sports This is looking at the wrong group. It is focusing on the students who are doing well academically and making a point about them. It also feels like it is too strong. the argument uses extremes like "Severe Academic Problems" and "large amounts of time". There could be students who are playing sports and doing well in classes. There is a correlation in between tons of sports and low grades but maybe Tommy over there is in every sport they offer and is a huge nerd doing fine in school. Correlations are imperfect. If they were perfect it would be conditional language. Therefore, correlations can have outliers.

E) the quality of the school’s sports program would not suffer as a result of the ban. this isn't even a focus of the argument at all.

Principle 

Find the rule that would match what is happening in the stim as close as possible (pick one that doesn't add extra)

Derek: sacrifice the trees to get the cancer drugs immediately.

Lola: Protect the trees and accompanying nature while we wait on synthetic cancer drugs.

A) Unless people’s well-being is threatened, there should be no higher priority than preserving endangered plant and animal populations. Completely does not work. this is a world where people are fighting cancer. Their health is a main problem. The unless in the first part of the sentence makes the sentence read: Preserve endangered plants and animals then not well being not threatened. Contrapositive of this is Well being threatened then not preserve plants and animals. This breaks down to be Derek's argument which we can see from the contrapositive.

B) Medical researchers should work with environmentalists to come to an agreement about the fate of the Pacific yew and the spotted owl. This is trying to combine the arguments (D pro chop it down and L save the nature) to come to a compromise on what they can take. Completely not Lola's point.

C) Environmental concerns should play a role in decisions concerning medical research only if human lives are not at stake. Conditional Indicator "Only If". EC should play a role in decisions then human lives not at stake. Contrapositive- Human lives at stake then EC should not play a role in decisions. This is Derek's again.

D) Only medical breakthroughs that could save human lives would justify threatening the environment. This is just sort of off without breaking down the logic. We have no information to tell the yew trees are helping with the drug breakthrough they are a natural form of treatment. This just doesn't match any information that we have from the stimulus.

E) Avoiding actions that threaten an entire ecosystem takes precedence over immediately providing advantage to a restricted group of people. First half of the sentence is good. Lola is talking about actions that threaten the entire ecosystem. Second half "restricted" is an odd word but doesn't harm the answer choice.

Point at Issue

Split Method - read one person see if they have an opinion on the topic. if they don't cross out the answer. If they do note for positive or negative. Read 2nd persons statement and see if they have an opinion. Note positive or negative. Point at issue is disagree (agree is rare). See where they disagree and that is your answer.

Derek: sacrifice the trees to get the cancer drugs immediately.

Lola: Protect the trees and accompanying nature while we wait on synthetic cancer drugs.

A) whether the harvesting of available Pacific yews would have far-reaching environmental repercussions D-no Opinion L- Agrees We can't do anything with an answer where one person has no opinion.

B) whether the drugs that are effective against potentially deadly diseases should be based on synthetic rather than naturally occurring chemicals D-"should be"=Perfect world The fact that he is willing to sacrifice the trees for people with cancer doesn't tell us whether he thinks they should be preferred. I am going with no opinion even though his plans lean towards no. L- same thing sort of with no opinion. B is such a wide statement that Lola could think it is true in this case but what if there is an overabundant plant that doesn't change wildlife stats that we could use in another case? Then her argument is gone.

C) whether it is justifiable to wait until a synthetic drug can be developed when the capacity for producing the yew-derived drug already exists D-no L-Yes

D) the extent of the environmental disaster that would result if both the Pacific yew and the spotted owl were to become extinct L is the only one that mentions this. D doesn't mention anything about this.

E) whether environmental considerations should ever have any weight when human lives are at stake Again Should (prescriptive perfect world) Made even stronger by ever so this statement is super broad. D and L are talking about a specific case not any case that could ever pop up in between the environment and human lives.

Inference

1. Growled then white poodle

2. white poodle then growled.

Bi conditional (all in or all out)

A) The only white dogs that Elena saw at the dog show were poodles. Well, if they were white then we know they growled but these could be any color or any temperament.

B) There were no gray poodles at the dog show. Totally could be true of false we don't know anything about this.

C) At the dog show, no gray dogs growled at Elena. We can confirm this based on the information in our stimulus. We know that every growly dog was a white poodle not grey. This must be true and is the correct answer.

D) All the white dogs that Elena saw growled at her. We only know about white poodles growling. Maybe she saw some white labs that were super sweet. We simply don't have information about this.

E) Elena did not see any gray poodles at the dog show. We don't know about anything that she saw except for white poodles. There could be a trex for all that we care about. We simply can't support any statement that is not drawn from the information about white poodles being the always growling and only growling animal.

Reason Resolve or Explain (RRE)

1. Citizens approve legislation for building incinerators

2. Citizens block building permits

What's the paradox?

Everyone supports proposal but blocks building it

Now we can predict a possible answer but there are a range of options that we may not be able to guess so I just read the answers and see what fits.

A) High-temperature incineration minimizes the overall risk to the human population of the country from the wastes being disposed of, but it concentrates the remaining risk in a small number of incineration sites. Minimal risk everywhere but where the incinerator is built. No one wants the incinerator and pertaining risk in their neighborhood.

B) High-temperature incineration is more expensive than any of the available alternatives would be, and the higher costs would be recovered through higher product prices. Does nothing to explain why people are against the building permits. Costs would affect everyone.

C) High-temperature incineration will be carried out by private companies rather than by a government agency so that the government will not be required to police itself. Completely not on subject (why people block building the incinerator)

D) The toxic fumes generated within a high-temperature incinerator can be further treated so that all toxic residues from a properly operating incinerator are solids. If anything this makes the paradox worse by saying the incinerators won't release chemicals into the surrounding air.

E) The substantial cost of high-temperature incineration can be partially offset by revenue from sales of electric energy generated as a by-product of incineration. What is partially offset? $10? How does this help explain why people are resisting the builders in every spot they look at?

Parallel Flaw

Genevieve

1. high costs cause less maintenance

2. lack of public spending causes problems with air traffic control centers

3. for reasons (1&2) it is becoming unsafe to fly and (prescriptive C) one should not fly

Harold

1. argument reasoning is good.

2. disagree with conclusion because Genevieve is saying one thing while doing the opposite

A) David says that the new film is not very good, but he has not seen it himself, so I don’t accept his opinion. Says without proof isn't the same as doing opposite of what was said.

B) A long time ago Maria showed me a great way to cook lamb, but for medical reasons she no longer eats red meat, so I’ll cook something else for dinner tonight. This is not close. Maria would have to do something like say everyone must eat lamb and then choose not to for herself to break her own rule. This has no overall rule or judgement from the first person for them to avoid.

C) Susan has been trying to persuade me to go rock climbing with her, claiming that it’s quite safe, but last week she fell and broke her collarbone, so I don’t believe her. This seems close but it proves the action as not safe instead to just stating the speaker does the opposite. The person telling you to do something for X reason is meant to do the opposite of their suggestion. Susan is not doing the opposite of her suggestion she is rock telling others to go rock climbing and then going rock climbing herself.

D) Pat has shown me research that proves that eating raw green vegetables is very beneficial and that one should eat them daily, but I don’t believe it, since she hardly ever eats raw green vegetables. This is perfect. Saying one thing and then doing the opposite which is why the 2nd party doesn't believe the speaker.

E) Gabriel has all the qualifications we have specified for the job and has much relevant work experience, but I don’t believe we should hire him, because when he worked in a similar position before his performance was mediocre. This has no rule or an opposite action. It is arguing on the person's history.

Reason Resolve or Explain (RRE)

1. Clear forest= More sunlight hits ground

2. more sunlight=more leafy shrubs (mule deer food)

3. Mule deer in cleared forests less well nourished (skinnier) than mule deer in old growth-- Conclusion

What's the paradox?

Deer seem less nourished where there should be more food.

Now we can predict but there are a range of options that we may not guess so I just read the answers and see what fits.

A) Mule deer have enzyme-rich saliva and specialized digestive organs that enable the deer to digest tough plants inedible to other deer species. okay, so what? all mule deer have this adaptation so it doesn't help explain why there is any difference in between the populations based on where they live.

B) Mule deer herds that inhabit cleared forests tend to have more females with young offspring and fewer adult males than do other mule deer populations. This gives proportions not overall numbers on deer. If it said cleared forests have more population than the plants can support and old growth doesn't it would work and I think that is what this wants you to assume. What gender and age the deer are really doesnt matter.

C) Mule deer populations are spread throughout western North America and inhabit hot, sunny climates as well as cool, wet climates. we know nothing about climates and how the relate to our forest types or the further jump of how that would lead to less nutrition. To choose this you would have to help the answer by making your causal story about how climate leads to less nutrition.

D) As plants receive more sunlight, they produce higher amounts of tannins, compounds that inhibit digestion of the plants’ proteins. the more sun there is the more plants grow (Premise) plus D) more sun more tannins and less digestion. This would mean the sun filled forests filled with food have food that is harder to digest and therefore gives less nutrition than the old growth forests where there is less light and less food. This is a suitable reason for why the cleared forest deer are less well nourished (more food but food is not giving them nutrients).

E) Insect parasites, such as certain species of ticks, that feed primarily on mule deer often dwell in trees, from which they drop onto passing deer. Both areas have trees in general for insects to live in. The old growth forests only took out the tallest trees. If you chose this answer you have to assume the insects are only a problem in areas with tall trees.

1. Same few options in food for years

2. For two days there was a new/different option

3. If wanting to please customers then new option should replace one of the old ones. --Conclusion (prescriptive)

Flaw Question ---Vulnerable/Fails to consider

A) the proportion of Acme Company employees who regularly eat lunch in the company cafeteria This doesn't matter. Those who do have the same options and are those who we are trying to please in the argument.

B) whether any of the ingredients used in the cafeteria’s recipe for mushroom casserole are included in any of the regular main dishes. The choice on ingredients is not what the question is focusing on. this would have been a harder choice to pick from if it looked at what was different but it doesn't even do that. It is comparing the ingredients that are the same.

C) a desire for variety as a reason for people’s choice of mushroom casserole during the days it was offered This is saying the desire of the mushroom dish isn't because people love it instead it is because people just want something different than the standard options. The argument assumes people really want the dish by itself rather than the possibility that they are just burnt out on everything else.

D) what foods other than main dishes are regularly offered at lunchtime by the cafeteria. This really doesn't matter we are only looking at or caring about main dish lunch options (specifically if one of them should be replaced)

E) whether other meals besides lunch are served in the Acme Company cafeteria Same as D. This really doesn't matter we are only looking at or caring about main dish lunch options (specifically if one of them should be replaced)

There is no explanation for this one yet so maybe this will help others who have struggled with this question.

Stim:

So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their antidevelopment, antiprogress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

Simplified

1. Current Claim -GL development bad for birds

2. Judgement about Claim History-History indicates alternate motive

3. Conclusion -(prescriptive) should dismiss claim (1.)

This is a Necessary Assumption Question.

A)Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.

This is basically saying that the environmentalists were not motivated by environmentally based causes in every case. So in at least one instance they had some other motive. This must be possible if the argument wants to attribute anti progress agendas to their motivations. Not every means at least 1 time not doing "X"

B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives. This looks good if we assume that the Environmentalists are under the umbrella of "People whose real agenda is to block development" based on the stimulus we simply don't know that those people belong under that umbrella so we can't chose this answer.

C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress. C is very similar to B by using "anyone who opposes unrestricted development" we do not know if environmentalists fit under that category of people.

D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns. This is talking about the council. We aren't focused on the councils and what they want. We are trying to focus in on the environmentalists and say they have false motives.

E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere. This one is easier to miss. Yeah we can say the environmentalist are opposing on environmental grounds but do we know that those grounds are their only concerns? In that case it could be a no. Maybe they are paid to go out and be loud environmentalists and money is their primary concern. The second issue with this is that it is talking about a large group (anyone opposing solely on enviro) and we know about one part of that group so when the answer says "almost always" we don't know if our section out of the group is consistent with that. Maybe our group is in the slim percentage that always cares. This doesn't connect back to the authors antiprogress agenda. The real concerns mentioned could be anything. So in short 3 problems: assume group fits, assumes they are not an outlier in almost always, assumes real concerns line up with those that the author attributes.

Things that I have learned about NA questions: The right answer is favorable to the authors argument. If it is a neccasery assumption then the argument directly needs the information to be true to work. It is unlikely that something that could harm the argument would be needed for the argument to work. Negated these answers must harm the argument and it is a good test to see if it is the correct answer. The correct answer choice must also be descriptively accurate which is where B, C, and D fail. E is harder to target because you can accept the first part but we don't know that it is the main motivation (Primary, Solely and Mainly are suspicious)

I personally got this wrong because I misread the stem and treated it like a SA question. The words "properly drawn" caught my eye and I went for it without noting the "must be assumed" portion of the question stem that would have defined it as a NA question.

@Daisy228

If it says "X requires Y" then Y would be the necessary concept.

If it says "X is required by Y" then the necessary concept would be X.

I chose to think of "requires" as the same as a Group 2 indicator because the idea would follow the concept but if the wording is anything slightly off from "X requires Y" then read it carefully and figure out what direction the "require" word is pointing you to.

Hope this helps.

@MeganHek I know you are likely past needing this but for anyone else I put the ways that I remember the words lists in the comments on the first page for each group. Hopefully it will help someone.

I remember this by: The "No" Group

All of group 4 words, even if they don't contain the word no, essentially mean no.

-NO

-NOne

-NOt Both

-CanNOt

-Never

(Never doesn't work as well for the mnemonic but it is fine)

I chose to remember these by using "A,E,I,O,U"

It isn't perfect because you have to think of "W" words instead or words that start with "U" but it was helpful.

A- Any, All

E- Every

I- If

O- The Only

U (W)- Where When

"The only" is the lone "only" indicator that falls in . group 1. Other "only" words are group 2.

Inclusive (and/or)

Feel free to grab some snacks or a drink.

Inclusive (and)

The new kitten thinks it is better behaved than either the youngest dog or the eldest dog.

Exclusive

My brother is going to stay up super late or go to bed ridiculously early.

In the inclusive (and/or) it is totally okay for the person to chose both a drink and a snack.

In the and example the new kitten thinks it is better behaved than both to the other options, namely its doggie siblings.

In the exclusive example it is simply not possible to do both.