In short: If an argument hinges on a key word, alarms should go off and you should be extremely sensitive to how it is used or developed. In each question during BR, I circle the subjects/actors, key transition words (but, yet, however, thus, etc) and words generally essential to the argument (a certain quality, theory, action). The goal eventually being to notice and mentally emphasize these key words on fresh questions. This has helped me find small changes and assumptions such as a misinterpreting or altering the meaning of key terms.

Easier question:

Ex. PT 77 S4 Q6

"Your newspapers advertisement claims that you provide coverage of the highschools most popular sports. Clearly this is false advertising. [15% of the school runs track, 5% play basketball, but you have stories only on basketball]"

The argument clearly rests on interpreting "popular" and answer C) "misinterprets a key word in the newspaper's advertisement" immediately sticks out.

Harder questions will change the interpretation of the word more subtly or distract you with more complex arguments that waste time parsing.

One that tripped me up at first was PT 59 S2 15

"A few theorists hold the extreme view that society could flourish in a condition of anarchy, the absence of government...But these theorists views ignore the fundamental principle of social philosophy -- that an acceptable social philosophy must promote peace and order. Any social philosophy that countenances chaos, ie. anarchy, accordingly deserves no further detention.

I prephrased an answer around the fact that just because a theory isn't acceptable/doesn't uphold a common principle of social philosophy doesn't mean it deserves no further attention. In reality the scope of what anarchy means is broadened considerably (A. a key term shifts illicitly) and I had accepted this assumption.

I’m normally quite proficient with Lawgic, but for whatever reason I’m having a lot of trouble with Pat’s statement (Terry’s flaw is easy to see).

Some good actions actually do not have favorable consequences. fc is not necessary for an action to be good

No actions considered bad have fc. fc is sufficient to avoid being bad

FC -> Bad

Some supposed bad actions -> FC

——————————

Some supposed bad actions -> Bad

I thought the flaw was in assuming not bad = good

Like others below, I’m having trouble with 25.

I think it’s quite a big leap to equate answer choice B to E. B prohibits all non academics, while E exempts academics but leaves all else undecided.

Ie. B) If you are not blonde you cannot swim in the pool

E) Blondes can swim in the pool

Re. A) “free access” and “raw material available for everyone to use” are both ascribed to the internet proponents. Even the smallest of fees would preclude absolutely everyone.

Agreeing to piecemeal exemptions for certain groups seems to be the only place compromise would occur between the two.

I feel like I failed with the negation strategy here. Is a probable genetic basis for any common cross-cultural behavior necessary for the argument? Would a 49% chance of genetic basis instead of a 51% chance wreck the argument?

My prephrase answer was that there is a possibility of genetic basis period, making “probable” seem rather extreme.

Any recommendations outside of process of elimination? I tend to go -0 with all assumption Qs and don’t want to start second guessing myself.

I could really use some help with question 15 since I swung and missed twice on it.

I was down to C and D and turned away from D because it said "main difficulty" when the passage specifically uses the plural "These difficulties" and does not assign a primary singular difficulty.

I figured the moral principle in C was that of "exact balance" and was encouraged by it being labeled "an ideal hardly attainable" (ideal = moral, hardly attainable = undermining said moral)

I've been trying to read more closely and hold the passage to its direct meaning but is there a point where I am doing this too much? Should I aim for a more general idea of the point rather than caring about singular v plural, grammatical components, etc?

#help (Added by Admin)