An easy willingness to tell funny stories or jokes about oneself is the surest mark of supreme self-confidence. This willingness, often not acquired until late in life, is even more revealing than is good-natured acquiescence in having others poke fun at one.

Which one of the following inferences is most supported by the statements above?

A A person who lacks self-confidence will enjoy neither telling nor hearing funny stories about himself or herself.

B People with high self-confidence do not tell funny stories or jokes about others.

C Highly self-confident people tell funny stories and jokes in order to let their audience know that they are self-

confident.

D Most people would rather tell a funny story or a joke than listen to one being told.

E Telling funny stories or jokes about people in their presence is a way of expressing one's respect for them.

I can understand how A is correct in that it completes the pre-phrase "a person who exhibits confidence will enjoy telling and hearing funny stories about themselves". However, I got rid of A because I assumed that they are not discussing the correct group that was discussed in the stimulus. It's a pattern and common wrong answer choice l've seen in other question type, where they are discussing the wrong group in the answer choices to trap you. For example, if the stimulus discusses only the group in a survey who love cheese. Then the wrong answer choice will try to trick the test taker and talk about those who do not love cheese. And that is where you are supposed to catch that and say " the stimulus only talks about the group who do love cheese not those who do not, therefore not needed for the argument. I don't understand why that doesn't apply here? If I were to do a fact check test and use the stimulus to support the answer, nowhere does it discuss a person who lacks self confidence or what makes a person not confident" . It only talks about what makes a person confident, not what doesn't make them confident. So would it be fair when approaching future questions to assume that if they are talking about a different group it could still be correct?

If anyone can help explain this I would truly appreciate it!! I've been trying to understand it for the past hour but still can't grasp why the right answer is right. I've watched the explanation video on 7sage and read power score's explanation but don't understand their conditional diagrams.

Conclusion: Thus, without increased funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions, the chemistry department is unlikely to gain the prestige that only achievements in basic science research confer.

Evidence/Premise:

Diagram explained by Power-score:

Premise: Advances in basic research -> More money

Premise: Gain prestige -> Advances in basic research

Conclusion: Gain prestige -> Money from sources other than Big Pharma.

Assumption/Pre-phrase: More money -> Money from sources other than Big Pharma

This is my new Diagram while reworking the problem:

SABR = Significant advances in Basic Research/ Only achievements in basic research confer

SFBR = Secure Funding for Basic Research

GP = Gain the Prestige

IF (NP) = Increased Profit from Non profits and non Pharmaceutical companies

Premise 1: SABR -> SFBR

Premise 2: GP -> SABR

Conclusion: GP -> IF (NP)

So here is where I am lost. I originally only had Premise 1 and the Conclusion diagramed because I thought "that only achievements in basic science research confer" was a part of the Conclusion. But I am assuming because of the necessary indicator "only" we need to add another premise and thats where premise 2 comes in? But I'm confused where we connect the pre-phrase/missing link/assumption because there are 2 "GP's". If anyone can please help explain because I know understanding this will be helpful towards future questions with the same difficulty and concept. I tried understanding it without conditional diagrams as I would approach it like any other NA question, but that was difficult as well.

Early in the development of a new product line, the critical resource is talent. New marketing ventures require a degree of managerial skill disproportionate to their short-term revenue prospects. Usually, however, talented managers are assigned only to established high-revenue product lines and, as a result, most new marketing ventures fail. Contrary to current practice, the best managers in a company should be assigned to development projects.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the author’s argument?

A

On average, new ventures under the direction of managers at executive level survive no longer than those managed by lower-ranking managers.

B

For most established companies, the development of new product lines is a relatively small part of the company’s total expenditure.

C

The more talented a manager is, the less likely he or she is to be interested in undertaking the development of a new product line.

D

The current revenue and profitability of an established product line can be maintained even if the company’s best managers are assigned elsewhere.

E

Early short-term revenue prospects of a new product line are usually a good predictor of how successful a product line will ultimately be.

My Work:

Pre-phrase: There is not another reason why new marking ventures are failing. They are failing because they specifically do not have talented managers.

Conclusion: Contrary to current practice, the best managers in a company should be assigned to development projects.

Premise, What is the evidence to support this?:

• Early in the development of a new product line, the critical resource is talent.

• New marketing ventures require a degree of managerial skill disproportionate to their short-term revenue prospects.

• Usually, however, talented managers are assigned only to established high-revenue product lines and, as a result, most new marketing ventures fail.

Why is this argument flawed?

What if there is another reason as to why these new marketing ventures are failing?

I've read power score's explanation and understand by E is incorrect (the answer I chose) but still confused on how to approach strengthen questions. I focused on the conclusion, "Contrary to current practice, the best managers in a company should be assigned to development projects." and interpreted it as the author wants the best managers on these developmental projects. So the focus of the argument being on developmental projects. And led to my prephrase "the author assumes there is not another reason why new marking ventures are failing" and hunted for answer choices that could fix that problem. Because I thought for Strengthen questions you focus on the conclusion and fill in the gap between the conclusion and premise. So when I read answer D, "The current revenue and profitability of an established product line can be maintained even if the company’s best managers are assigned elsewhere", I thought, "isn't the author focused on success for the developmental projects and not the success of the established projects?". To me It wasn't relevant to their conclusion. Can someone please explain why this is an incorrect way of thinking? also please provide tips on how I can improve my pre-phrasing when it comes to filling gaps in the argument and looking at flaws. I appreciate any help!!