The question is easy when you consider what the argument assumes about the field inspectors. Is it even their job to send a representative sample? Perhaps they are supposed to send samples that are defective in the first place → D

When you go back and review these questions, they seem so easy on the second round.

I fell for the misreading trap for A. The destruction caused by an average tornado doesn't have anything to do with the amount of tornados.

B and D weaken the argument.

E is just irrelevant—so what if the boundaries haven't changed? The number of tornados within those boundaries could be much higher or much lower.

C adds a little bit of support to the argument, which is all the question is asking for.

I feel like this is one of those flaws that you just need exposure to... You can parse out the answer to many flaw questions before even reading the ACs, because you often encounter the flaw frequently in the real world. I know so many people that hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Who's to say which belief is wrong and which is right? → D

So a "conflicts-with-the-principle" question means that the answer should both satisfy the sufficient and deny the necessary presented in the argument.

Question 5 is A because the legally binding records are necessary BECAUSE the Kayapo are primarily an oral society.

Misreading can really hang you up

As long as you negate C, you'll have to choose E.

C is wrong because this argument really has nothing to do with Malthus—he is included as an ancillary feature. The argument is about how agricultural advances will lead to a lack of biodiversity, causing insufficient food and problems in the future. The first statement is given in contrast to this conclusion → D.

E doesn't match up with the conclusion provided in the stimulus.

The key to choosing A is "can".

You have to keep in mind both sides of the conclusion in order to understand why D is correct. It claims not only that the bacteria detect red, but is also claims that they detect it by monitoring the energy it creates. D is correct because if this conclusion were true, then why wouldn't they do the same thing if enough blue light were provided? E is too general to back up any sort of claim regarding the argument.

Not A - the experiment is not "gratuitous."

Not C - "experimenting on animals" is too general. This case deals with causing death.

Not D - Mary is not a "practicing veterinarian."

Not E - Death is not the "sole intention."

B - not "immediately assisting in saving several animal's lives" --> not justifiable

I misread B to say "the more younger a sibling is..." Yikes.

I looked up how to solve these questions online—identify the argument and its necessary assumptions, then turn those N.A.'s into questions. This method should give you the right answer.

The author is essentially saying, "Don't get me wrong, the overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity IS a good thing, butttttt...."

If you read it this way, AC B makes total sense—the author doesn't think that it's bad to humanize any and all incarnations of evil, just vampires. She wants to limit how broadly the conclusion of the argument should be generalized.

"Evaluate the argument" question types essentially mean, "What else would be good to know if we were to take this argument at face value? Are there perhaps other factors affecting the scenario that could potentially weaken the argument?"

The conclusion is found in the question stim: the program is the cause of reduced automobile theft for those cars with the decals. AC A asks, "Are these particular car owners doing anything else that's helping to prevent their cars from being stolen in addition to getting the decals?" That would be great to know, because if they were, then that would totally weaken the argument.

AC E asks about cross sections of the neighborhood being representational of all cars owned in the area. This isn't relevant to the argument, because the argument isn't even making any sort of claim about the area at large—it's simply saying that the decals are the cause of reduced theft. That's it. It's not even saying that decals work in general, just that they worked in this instance. Remember to not bring in outside knowledge or assumptions and ONLY go with what's written in the stimulus.

The answer is certainly B. This argument has two premises, the second and third sentences, which pair together to support the conclusion. The first sentence could be coupled with the second to establish the premise that people often don't actually vote for candidates whose values align with their own.

The conclusion isn't trying to explain any sort of phenomenon (A)—instead, its marrying the premises together to describe what's happening when both premises are considered simultaneously.

AC A is the answer because the logic chain in the stimulus is the ONLY info that you should go off of. I was thinking, "Well, what if one corporation withdrew their support and the others gave more? Then AC A wouldn't necessarily HAVE to be true." But this isn't how MBT questions work. ONLY go off the information in the stimulus.