I understand it by reversing the logic: for the conclusion to follow, we must make the assumption that

interested in improving intellects -> MUST not be interested in financial gain; thus

ONLY those not interested in financial gain -> interested in improving intellects.

Not interested in financial gain is a necessary condition for interested in improving intellects.

This is a rly bad argument but. I think what they’re saying is that since some rock they RECENTLY discovered from Mars shows a ratio from BEFORE there was life on Earth, we can apply the same principle that this rock is a PRE LIFE ON MARS rock, and therefore it is unlikely that life has occurred on Mars. In doing this, they’re assuming that earth ratios work the same as mars ratios.

@ZoeNelson I needed to think about this differently — klemke’s argument is that “complaints unfounded bc political views.” The author points out that “political views /-> unfounded complaints.” Then the author makes the mistake of concluding that the complaints are not unfounded. We cannot justify that. What the author should have concluded is that the complaints are not unfounded on the basis of different political views (but that doesn’t mean they might not be unfounded for a different reason).

Ok but if mr klemke’s argument is that the complaints are unfounded on the grounds that they disagree with his political views, then wouldn’t disproving that claim nullify the argument? If an inadequate argument has been given as the entire reason for his statement then disproving that argument makes the claim false, no?

Taking advantage of cultural opportunities = enjoying works of art aesthetically ???

We should be looking to resolve the problem that susceptibility to carpal tunnel syndrome differs between those most in control over their own work vs. those least in control over their own work, despite the fact that they do similar amounts of typing. The only answer choice that can explain this is B. A contradicts the premise, E contradicts the conclusion, and C & D do not resolve the discrepancy. 

The vitamin C group had less severe acne (not necessarily less severe than before) than the placebo group during the study, but half of the subjects in each group (those who could not tell which pill they were given, which we can forget for now) showed no difference in severity of acne. A weakens the conclusion that vitamin C has no real benefit in reducing severity of acne because it implies that the vitamin C group had more severe acne to begin with than the placebo group, which means that the fact that there was no difference in severity of acne between vitamin C and placebo group for a large portion of the subjects could be explained by the fact that vitamin C group started at higher levels and vitamin C treatment reduced the severity down to the level that the placebo group already started at.

C is not only not supported by the environmentalists’ theory (the most they say is “domestic spending can fall when a nation shifts money toward repayment of its debt,” nothing about encouraging production of exports) but it also does not answer the question, which is about the author of the passage’s view, not the environmentalists’ views. E is the correct answer because the author points out that “a case could be made that [debt] may rein in potentially harmful spending.” The key word here is also can, not “will always.”

A- Passage b does not indicate that the costs of recovery will be low, and anyway this doesn’t have to do directly with whether the coins should be sold or not

B- this goes against Passage a’s interests, they want to recover

D- not supported at all in Passage b, can’t just make stuff up

E- also can’t just make stuff up

C- correct answer by default.. this both gets around the destruction of cultural value and allows for the company to obtain real value from recovered coins.

I don’t understand the “need not” language here. I agree that answer choice A is correct if it said “do not.” But “need not” implies that many sociologists believe that economically motivated decisions by voters do not need to constitute a complex phenomenon, but they could. That seems antithetical to the conclusion drawn here, that sociologists oppose rational choice theory.