Not even kidding, I think I got this question right on my diagnostic but missed it after 300+ hours of studying

As someone who spent almost 6 min on this and somehow got it right, lemme make it simple.

This is a bit like a MBF in the sense that the correct AC must go against the stim and the other ACs could very well "exist" within the same universe. You're basically cementing the logic of the stim into your brain and then plugging in each AC to see if it totally breaks the argument.

So a bit like an NA negation test but without the negation and the same vibe as a MBF...something like that.

Make it Simple:

The first chunk of the stim is all context that defines what a retrospective study is. Highlight the last two sentences as [PREMISE] and [CONCLUSION]. This is really all that matters.

Then rearrange it in your mind like so:

[CONCLUSION]: Retrospective studies cannot reliably determine the causes of human subjects' present characteristics because [PREMISE] these studies must use subjects' reports about their own pasts.

What's missing?

We have to link the fact that self-reporting negatively impacts study's reliability. Ask yourself why that is and it should help lead you to the correct AC.

Hunt and Plug:

[CONCLUSION]: Retrospective studies cannot reliably determine the causes of human subjects' present characteristics because [PREMISE] these studies must use subjects' reports about their own pasts, and [GAP] in these studies their reports can be highly inaccurate.

Dang (A) might as well have said "Questioning Mario's ability to think" lol then (E) says "You are not smart"

Once you do enough of these SA questions, the gap should begin to jump out at you. We're told this guy is wrong, but are we actually given the reason that his actions were wrong?

All we know is that he must have realized that he would be putting people at risk. Notice how there's nothing that ties putting people at risk to being wrong. It seems like a pretty obvious assumption, but we can't assume anything.

This is where anticipation will make you serious money on this test. You already know that a key concept in the conclusion is proving that something is "wrong," and the correct AC usually includes this. That's why (D) securely plugs the gap--it defines what "wrong" is--putting someone at serious risk.

I read it to myself like so:

State the conclusion followed by the premise(s), then validate the gap using the correct AC:

"It was clearly wrong for him to [insert action] --why? Because as a builder, he must have known that his actions put people at risk, and it is wrong to put people at risk for the sake of profit.

(D) fits because if you go down the line, every AC before it hits on performance reduction; telling me about why someone chose to go on a diet does nothing to explain why the diet would have that effect.

For those wondering about (E), it basically tells you that they're getting slammed with alcohol-like side-effects without having consumed any. What happens to your driving/flying/riding performance on alcohol? Performance reduction (among other things).

Bro says "for the sake of consistency,"...brother, according to your logic, we could just fire the other employees as well, no? Two sides of the same coin.

Conclusion (Earth is better for life compared to most planets the same age)

Fact 1 (Life forms depend on chemicals)

Fact 2 (Our sun has these chemicals)

That's it. Fact 1 and 2 don't support each other--they're to be taken at face value as the evidence for the conclusion.

Dawg I always highlight the "agree" on these lol

Stim:

[PREMISE] My buddy says one thing.

[PREMISE] I know a fun fact.

[ASSUMPTION] My buddy definitely also knows my fun fact.

[CONCLUSION] My buddy probably believes something in line with my fun fact because he definitely, 100%, absolutely knows things too.

Flaw:

Mental State Vs. Reality (everyone knows my fun fact...right?)

Correct Answer Choice:

[PREMISE] Bo says, "Great heavens, the soil in my backyard is poorly drained!"

[PREMISE] "Hmmm, raspberry bushes will not grow well in soil that is poorly drained," I think to myself. What a great fun fact.

[ASSUMPTION] Bo is smart. He definitely also knows my fun fact.

[CONCLUSION] Bo probably believes that raspberry bushes will not grow well in his backyard. I mean, he knows stuff too.

Stim:

P1: If /X, then Y

P2: Example of Y's impact

-----------------------------

C: Should be X

Correct AC (B):

If /recess, health risks

Example of /recess impact

---------------------------------

C: Should have recess

1. Draw a big circle and label it "CITY ART MOVEMENT"

2. Divide the circle into two parts proportional to what they represent ("most" paintings are BOLD/SHARP, "few" are ABSTRACT)

3. Place an "X" outside of the entire circle and label "BLUE IRISES" (author's conclusion)

4. In order for the author's argument to stand, "Blue Irises" cannot be ABSTRACT, nor can it be both SHARP and BOLD (we already know /SHARP).

5. Correct AC is (C) because the author is claiming that "Blue Irises" doesn't belong in the city art movement. For this to be true, it simply can't be anything within that circle. If it were abstract (the negation of AC (C)), the argument wouldn't make any sense, and the conclusion would not follow.

Got caught up on (B). Upon second glance, it's entirely possible that the city doesn't automatically clear sidewalks (they reserve the right to after a 24-hour period). If they end up doing so, then you can expect the bill.

(A) looks goofy from the surface until you realize that /within 48 hours just means anything beyond that timeframe. So now we're within scope--we also know from our analysis on (B) that the city clearing a sidewalk initiates the bill, so this AC fits.

Righttttt, we're only concerned with which method relieves pain better, not which one heals the injury the most.

Argument:

-There are two types of killer whales:

1) Fish Killas (no kill seals)

2) Seal Killas (kill seals)

-Fish Killas and Seal Killas have different whale moans

-Seals avoid Seal Killas by distinguishing between the two whale moans

-CONCLUSION: Young seals avoid all Killas until they learn to ignore the Fish Killas

Analysis:

So, we got ourselves a phenomenon-hypothesis argument...also causal reasoning. The author assumes that there's nothing else going on that would explain this behavior other than what's on the page.

Our job is to strengthen this argument, and we can do that by ruling out any other alternative explanations that could exist.

Answer Choices:

(A) This is a fun fact, but it does us no good. Would this help to establish that the reason seals adapt to different types of killer whales is due to their ability to distinguish between whale moans?

(B) We're talking about the seals, not the fish. We simply do not care if the fish lack the same ability as the seals--the argument isn't about them.

(C) Bingo--this experiment sets up a convincing test for the author's premise. It demonstrates that the seals innately avoid all types of killer whales from the start--even the Fish Killas.

(D) Whether or not they show aversion to other natural predators does nothing to affect the argument. We're only focused on the predator category of seals, and we're concerned with supporting the idea that their behavior can be 100% contributed to their hearing ability.

(E) brings up an oddly specific situation in which a Fish Killa mistakenly harms a seal. Let's say that one seal does end up avoiding all killer whales that speak that specific dialect. Wouldn't that detract from the author's argument by suggesting that, rather than acquiring an aversion via "big brain" strategies like language differentiation, the seals just end up learning it the "hard way?"

The statement in question is a concession made by the author--it's the "Now don't get me wrong...it can be good..." part of the argument. The critic is essentially saying that, while the trend isn't necessarily harmful in all cases, the whole "humanizing vampires" thing is because they're sitting at the farthest end of the evil spectrum.

Argument:

You should choose any other occupation over being an artist. Why? Because they get paid via subjective evaluations via their audience, which is unacceptable.

Analysis:

Ok...but what about other professions? Aren't there some that are paid in this manner too? The author never ruled them out, so it's a bit of a weird "failed catch-all" on their part.

Answer Choices:

(A) The author isn't considering pay as the sole criteria for choosing one's profession--it's mainly about how they're paid. So, this AC is descriptively inaccurate and misses the flaw.

(B) Misses the flaw completely and is descriptively inaccurate. The author never assumes this--we're taking a huge leap ourselves in assuming that the author is hinting at what these "subjective evaluations" are.

(C) Here we go--there are 100% other professions that rely on subjectively when it comes to pay. What does the author think a quarterly review/counseling is? It's not like a magical AI robot sits the employee down and gives it 100% objective feedback.

(D) Notice how this one thinks the issue at hand is the pay itself. Similar to (A), (D) tries to pin the flaw on the author's assumption that artists don't get paid well. The author isn't fighting that, nor do they insinuate that artists are paid more or less--just that the method by which they're paid is sus.

(E) Nope--what criterion must be satisfied in order to make a career choice a good one? Is there any conditional language going on here? I don't think so--the author is thinks that the criterion is flawed but proceeds to incorrectly apply it to one profession rather than realizing it could be more.

We need the animals alive to study them, which gives us the best chance of saving them. So, the more they die, the harder it is to gain information and thus it becomes more difficult to save them.

Initial Assessment:

As soon as you see two things being compared--argument by analogy. I need to weaken this argument, and the best way to do that in this case is to drive a wedge between the two things being compared.

Argument:

Here, the author is comparing dictionaries and the periodic table to justify the use of implementing dictionaries to interpret the law. They do this by stating that the periodic table is an agreed-upon foundational knowledge base that can be applied to a particular problem set. In other words, the author assumes that dictionaries share the same quality.

Analysis:

How can we drive a distinction between scientists' actual application of the periodic table vs how a lawyer would use a dictionary to solve a problem? We're told that the periodic table can be "usefully applied to [a] problem because it's a widely "agreed-upon" source. Do we really know that to be true of a dictionary though?

Answer Choices:

(A) This doesn't indicate that a scientists' process or application of their resource differs dramatically from that of a lawyer's, nor does it point out a substantial qualitative difference between the periodic table vs dictionary. I guess it tries to--but the way the "data" is arranged in either source has zero bearing on the analogy.

(B) Nice--we're given the fact that the periodic table is agreed upon by the collective scientist hivemind, but the author just assumes that of the dictionary as well. Since (B) points out this to be false, the strength of the analogy begins to fade, making it harder to believe the author's conclusion that a dictionary would have the same effect.

(C) Who cares about whether or not the periodic table came before or after dictionaries? Does that change the fact that dictionaries may or may not be useful to lawyers in the same manner as the periodic table is to scientists? Even if dictionaries came about a million years prior, I could still come up here and tell you that the way in which the periodic table is useful to a scientist is similar to how a lawyer uses a dictionary.

(D) is similar to (A) in that it points out a nothing-burger difference between dictionaries and the periodic table. Remember, we're trying to weaken the idea that a dictionary can be useful in the same manner a periodic table is--just because one source easier to memorize than the other doesn't mean it's less useful.

(E) Back at it again-- just like (A) and (D), this AC is grasping at straws. Just because a dictionary isn't typically used by the proponents suggested by the author doesn't mean they can't still be useful.

Tip for WSE Qs:

Answer each AC with a YES or NO (or positive vs. negative, or high vs. low, etc.). In this case, (E) asks what percentage of domestic products are inspected. What if domestic products aren't inspected at all (negative/low/NO)? That changes how we look at the full picture because the author assumes that imported products have a lower inspection rate compared to domestic.

For some reason I thought "convicted criminals" was referring to the defendant rather than the co-conspirator or jailhouse informant smh

I couldn't wrap my head around what they meant by "new methods of food production." I finally realized we're being tasked with identifying what the author might think about some other method of food production based on their stance towards fish farming.

Author thinks that fish farming isn't worth the squeeze because it ends up being counterintuitive (requires tapping into the wild fish population to feed the farmed fish, when the overarching goal is to stop tapping into the wild fish population).

(C) summarizes this nicely. If fish farming creates a net gain of 0 or even a net loss, can we honestly call it an effective alternative method?

I was today years old (7 months into studying) when I found out you can CTRL+F in RC

Looking at (E), it's hard to justify any amount of restructuring/editing, especially given the common theme against it in the passage. (C) seems to be presenting a case in which we're doing just that until you realize it's entirely in line with what the author thinks.

If subtitles are a problem because they tend to be inaccurate or whatever, the author says get 'em outta here. We aren't given that in the stim (and this is where RC takes after LR)--rather, we don't know the accuracy of the subtitles in the Russian film. So we're essentially at a crossroads with the author's principle: If subtitles bad, remove. If subtitles not bad, no remove.

How do I get a -7 on this section but a -15 on the first one