The stimulus suggests 2 distinct explanations for why doctors now are less compassionate/treat patients rudely.

1. doctors regard medicine as a science rather than an art

2. certain economic incentives encourage doctors to treat patients rudely

B is incorrect bc it is suggesting that one explanation (2) causes the other explanation (1). The phenomenon the stimulus is trying to explain is why doctors act less compassionately. So trying to connect the two proposed explanations for this phenomena does not support the author's statements.

E is correct. It is reasonable to conclude that doctors' lack of compassion and rude demeanor (rude treatment, discourage questions, patronizing) would lead patients to perceive them as though they do not care about their patients.

The wording used "the written portion" suggests that there are multiple parts to the certification process. The author only comments on the written portion, stating that nearly everyone passes it so it must not be very difficult. But what about the other portions of the certification process? The author's argument leaves open the possibility that some other portion/s of the cert process other than the written portion may be very difficult.

Important to keep the MC in mind when looking at ACs. We are looking for an answer that makes the MC in the stimulus more likely to be true/more believable.

Conclusion: the hepadnavirus is at least 25 million years old.

• We are concerned with the age of the hepadnavirus

A is incorrect. I mistakenly chose this one. I thought that the fact that the virus can influence likelihood of divergence would help support the fact that the single species diverged into two after being infected with the virus. A tells us viruses can influence divergence, but it doesn't tell us this virus caused this divergence or even that this virus was present before this divergence.

C is correct. If we assume this statement to be true -- if viruses insert themselves on random spots on chromosomes -- this would make us question the odds of the virus being inserted at the same location of the 2 species after they diverged. It would be much more likely that the virus appeared while it was one species (thus inserting itself in one location) and then the species later diverged into 2 (thus explaining why the virus is located on the same place for the 2 different species).

B is correct. If we accept this statement as true -- that no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago -- then this leads us to question whether lichen and grass were burnt simply bc that was the best form to get heat or light, not necessarily that they were in pursuit of smoke. It could be the case that they burnt lichen for a another reason and the production of a lot of smoke just happened to be a byproduct.

A is incorrect because the existence of nearby fireplaces that produced more heat than smoke does not undermine the claim that the lichen-and-grass fireplaces were used for smoking meat. It could very well be that other fireplaces burn other materials while lichen and grass serve as the main form of preservation of meat.

E is correct. West presupposes that bc 50% of the returned appliances were inspected by Haynes, this makes him a bad inspector. It fails to consider how many appliances each of the 3 inspectors inspected overall. The fact that Haynes inspected significantly more than half the appliances makes us question the validity of West's argument. If Haynes inspected significantly more appliances than the other two inspectors, that may explain why, of all the appliances that were returned last year, half were inspected by Haynes -- bc Haynes inspected a greater proportion of appliances overall in comparison to the 2 other control inspectors.

C is incorrect bc Young does not dispute one of the argument's stated premises. The only stated premise in West's argument is "of the appliances that were returned last year bc of quality control defects, half were inspected by Haynes". Young does not challenge that premise directly. It could still very well be that half of the returned appliances were inspected by Haynes. Young is challenging the unstated assumption that bc half of the returned appliances were inspected by Haynes, that makes him bad. Like okay sure a lot of returned appliances were inspected by Haynes but he also inspects are greater proportion of the appliances.

Yes I didn't make it clear but I was just making a note of what the term "prerequisite" implies, not stating that C was the correct answer. Sorry for the confusion!

C is correct bc all we know from the stimulus is that none of Brimley's contributions needed to be registered according to the law, but we don't know for certain whether or not some of these contributions were registered. We can only go as far as to conclude none of the contributions needed to be registered, not that they were or weren't.

A is incorrect. The stimulus says Brimley accepts contributions from former residents of Weston, and this group of people are technically considered nonresidents (they used to but no longer live here). A former resident could have contributed more than $100 and not have to be registered, making AC A false.

B is incorrect bc the stimulus does not give us enough info to guarantee that some contributions were registered at all.

D is incorrect. Although it was not required that any of the contributions to Brimley's campaign be registered, it is possible that some contributions of less than $100 were registered voluntarily.

E is incorrect bc although none of the contributions needed to be registered, we cannot conclude that the campaign did not register any contributions.

The flaw in the argument is that the author failed to consider the possible existence of other factors that could make one feel comfortable approaching a stranger.

While it is is true that being of the same approx age may cause one to feel more comfortable approaching a stranger, it is not the only way one could be made to feel comfy approaching stranger. What about shared interests or people you work with for example.

The author assumes that because the two studies used different methods of investigation, those different methods are enough to explain why the studies reached different results. However, this does not necessarily follow. Different methods of investigation can produce the same results, so the mere fact that the methods differed does not eliminate the need to look for another explanation for the conflicting findings.

All the incorrect AC are cookie-cutter flaws:

B is incorrect. Refers to inferring a causal relationship just from a correlation.

C is incorrect. Refers to equivocation -- an argument uses a word or phrase in two different senses, but treats them as identical.

D is incorrect. Refers to drawing a conclusion on how the world actually is based on how it should be.

E is incorrect. Refers to part-to-whole flaw -- just bc a group has a certain property, does not mean each individual member or component of the group has that property.

Incorrectly negates the sufficient and necessary conditions given in the premise to reach the conclusion.

Premise: IF purpose of law is to contribute to happiness --> THEN have basis to evaluate laws

Conclusion: IF /(purpose of law is to contribute to happiness) --> THEN /(have basis for evaluation of laws)

@alexbonaguidi I can see where you're coming from when thinking that the plans could benefit newer lawyers by helping them attract clients. The issue is that the question asks why the author mentions these marketing devices, so we have to view them through the author's perspective.

The author argues that these plans would mainly serve as marketing devices for less-established lawyers, who the author also characterizes as tending to have less expertise and producing lower client satisfaction. So the mention of "marketing devices" is not praise—it's part of the author's criticism. The point is that the plans would primarily steer clients toward less-qualified lawyers rather than improve the overall quality of legal services.

Hope this helps!

@RyanSD I thought the same thing on my first pass and BR, but the explanation video helped clear this up for me. The fact that the autobiographies mentioned in AC D are generally unknown among contemporary critics of 20th century autobiographies helps undermine the author's claim.

The author claims that these 20th century Latina biographies revolutionized this genre. But if several 19th century autobiographies used such techniques that the author found so "innovative" in Latina biographies, maybe the author was ignorant in making that claim & only believed that to be the case bc he/she simply did not know that another group (19th century autobiographies in this case) beat 20th century Latina autobiographies to using techniques like mixed structure and multiple authorship.

Hope this helps!

A is correct. If negated -- if the scientists are not aware that the results of the BE Experiment and Wang's Law together contradict the M Hypothesis, then there is no reason to believe that they would reject the M Hypothesis simply bc they know Wang's Law and BE experiment results.

B is incorrect bc it is too strong. I mistook "almost all" to be the same as "most". However "almost all" implies an overwhelming majority, not a simple majority of 51% or more. When interpreted correctly, I see why it is not necessary for the scientists who accept Wang's law to be exactly the same ones who know the results of the BE Experiment. The argument does not require the same individuals to hold both beliefs—only that enough overlap exists among “almost all” to support the conclusion.

Takeaway: When an argument combines two widely held beliefs to infer another belief, it assumes people recognize the implication of holding both beliefs. It does NOT require that the exact same individuals hold each belief—only sufficient overlap.

I misidentified the conclusion, mistakenly thinking it was the first sentence. This led me to select AC C.

Premises:

• the mayor is undeniably bold (not a super helpful statement in reaching the correct AC)

• the mayor's assertions are made with utter certainty and confidence

"While these kinds of assertions may make him popular with the public" is a concession.

Conclusion: These assertions demonstrate that he is not an introspective person.

The assumption that the argument depends on can be stated as either

• The people who make assertions with utter certainty and confidence somehow indicates they are NOT introspective

  OR

• People who are introspective do not make these kinds of assertions (this version matches AC A)

C is correct bc if almost none of the cars sold to the company are still running, then those cars are already not contributing to the 30% pollution. In order for the plan to be effective, the company must buy cars that predate 1980 that are still being driven (and thus, still polluting local air).

A is incorrect bc it does not undermine the argument. Even if only 1% of cars driven in the local area predate 1980, the stimulus already told us that this subset of cars accounts for 30% of the pollution. The fact that only 1% of cars fit the description simply means that 1% is responsible for the 30% local air pollution. It is NOT saying that only 1% of cars predating 1980 are driven in the local area!!!

B is incorrect bc the costs are irrelevant to this argument. We are concerned with what would be the most effective way to reduce air pollution.

D is incorrect bc the argument is concerned with cars that predate 1980, not those cars made after 1980.

E is incorrect bc citizen complaints may not reflect the actual amount of pollution. We want to know what method is most effective at reducing pollution, not which one will reduce complaints more.

E is correct bc if negated -- if we should NOT balance the justice of an action with the consequences for our interests of undertaking that action -- the argument falls apart. The argument relies on the idea that we should balance justice with our own interests. Without this principle, there is no justification for overriding punishment in this scenario.

A is incorrect bc the argument is not concerned with nonagricultural commodities. Instead, it's focused on selling agricultural equipment and agricultural imports.

B is incorrect bc the ability to enter international markets is not relevant to the argument's reasoning.

C is incorrect bc it is too strong. The author is claiming that we should not jeopardize the people's interests in this specific case, but does not go as far as saying we should NEVER jeopardize these interests. The negation of this AC would not cause the argument to fall apart.

D is incorrect bc the author is arguing that in this case, the interests of our people do in fact have priority over punishing a protectionist country. The negation of this AC would not undermine the argument (it actually seems to be consistent with the author's stance).

to qualify something = to limit or make more specific

When you qualify an assertion, you are putting limits on a broader claim.

I chose AC D bc I thought that if negated -- if there were spots where both goblin ferns and earthworms can be found -- it suggests that both species can live within the same area without one causing the disappearance of the other.

I now see that the negation of D is consistent with the info we're given in the stimulus. If earthworms are in fact responsible for the fern's disappearance, then it would make sense to find areas where both are present during the process of the worms eating the ferns.

In this case, coexistence does not allow me to infer that there is evidence against the argument. Coexistence is reasonable during a process where one species is killing another.

E is correct. If negated -- if L. rubellus DOES favor habitats where the leaf litter is considerably thinner than what is required by goblin ferns -- this provides an alternate explanation. Perhaps the ferns died bc the leaf litter layer was already thin and the earthworms came after. An assumption the author makes is that the earthworms did not show up after the ferns had already disappeared.

A is incorrect bc the author does not assume goblin ferns can be found wherever there is a thick leaf litter layer.

B is incorrect. Even if it were true that some of the earthworms that are native to north america eat leaf litter, this would not weaken or destroy the argument. It could still be the case that L. rubellus is causing the fern's disappearance.

C is incorrect bc if negated, it does not undermine the argument. It is possible that other plants in the area contribute to creating the leaf litter.

D is incorrect bc if negated -- if there are some spots in the forests where both goblin ferns and earthworms of the species can be found -- this does not undermine the argument. If L. rubellus is in fact responsible for the fern's disappearance it would make sense for there to be areas where both species are found in the process of the earthworms killing the ferns.

B is correct. It is a claim for which a causal explanation is provided. Why is it that farmers have to use greater and greater amounts of the insecticides to control pests? Bc insects' resistance to insecticides increases with usage (this is the causal explanation for the phenomenon). The statement is then used to support the main conclusion. (I don't agree with it being the only conclusion but gaf, all the other ACs can be eliminated).

A is incorrect bc that statement is not the main conclusion.

C is incorrect bc it is def not the only conclusion.

D is incorrect bc the statement does not provide direct support for an intermediary conclusion. If anything, the statement itself is the int. conclusion and the support is provided by the fact the insects' resistance to insecticides increases with use.

E is incorrect bc the main conclusion does not offer a causal explanation. Instead the premises explain the main conclusion by showing how long-term insecticide use is counterproductive.

From stimulus:

forest habitat preserved --> /(SM extinct) --> intervention

C is incorrect. The fact that the monkeys can flourish because of the plentiful supply of their fav insects and fruit does not imply that they would become extinct without their fav food supply. All we know is that if these second-growth forests are preserved, then the monkeys will not go extinct. It never goes as far as saying the preferred fruits and insects are necessary for the survival of the species.

E is correct bc this relationship is supported by the conditional chain. If the forest habitat is preserved, then the conservationists did in fact intervene.

A is correct, If the chairperson did not consult any other members of the commission prior to releasing the report, then there is no way most other members of the commission had first given their consent. Bc we have reason to believe NOT(over half of members first gave consent), we can use the contrapositive of AC A to bridge the gap in the argument.

P: The chairperson did not consult any other member of the commission

P: X

C: The chairperson should not have released the Election Comms report to the public.

X = if most other members had NOT first given their consent (which is implied by the fact that the chairperson did not consult any other member) --> then it would NOT have been permissible to release the report

B is incorrect bc knowing that all members signed the report before the release tells us nothing about whether it should or should not have been released.

C is incorrect bc nothing in the stimulus tells us whether members of the commission had serious reservations.

D is incorrect bc nothing in the stimulus tells us whether the members would or would not have agreed to the report being released. All we know is that they weren't consulted. We don't know what they would have thought had they been asked. In order for this AC to work, we would need to be able to show that there was at least one person that did not agree to releasing the report, but the stimulus just doesn't allow us to get there.

E is incorrect bc knowing that some members would have preferred that the report not be released tells us nothing about whether the report should or should not have been released.

Takeaway: Be cautious of eliminating ACs simply bc of a "strong" word. I eliminated A too quickly bc I saw the word "most" and assumed that a claim about most people could not be correct. But after reviewing it very clearly is supported by the info given in the stimulus.

B is correct bc it properly describes the conditional chain relationship. The fiction that these interpretations embody the intentions of the authors is vital bc without it the illusion necessary to maintain political stability would vanish.

Political stability --> illusion that maintains political stability --> fiction

A is incorrect bc the stimulus is about people of a nation believing that the laws under which they live express the intentions of the authors, not their current political leaders.

C is incorrect. The stimulus is concerned with political leaders' interpretations of a constitution, not their beliefs. There is also a key distinction between the word "divergence" (AC C) and "consistently" (AC B). There could, and very likely is, a divergence between beliefs of authors and present political leaders. However, people do not need to think that modern politicians share the same exact beliefs as the authors of a constitution -- just that they are interpreting the constitution in a way that aligns with the authors' intentions.

D is incorrect bc the idea of a written constitution preserving an illusion is not supported by the stimulus.

E is incorrect bc the stimulus only states that these interpretations made by present political leaders are usually portrayed as embodying the intentions of authors, not that they in fact do embody or share these intentions.

I did not choose E bc I was iffy on the referential phrasing being used. I understood the idea that supermarkets tactfully place items in certain areas in the store to make customers pass tempting displays on the way but the word "manipulation" felt strong to me. I now see that I was overly critical of the term in this context. These tactful layouts are a manipulative strategy used by supermarkets on customers. However, these said layouts can cause customers to feel alienated (aka an unwelcome consequence of their layout strategy).

A is incorrect bc there is nothing in the stimulus that supports a prescriptive statement. We have no idea what supermarkets should or shouldn't do.

B is incorrect bc the stimulus does not state what is good or not good for business, nor is there anything in the stimulus that warrants this as a reasonable assumption or inference that can be drawn.

C is incorrect bc "fail" is too strong. The stimulus does not support the idea that the manipulative tactic used by supermarkets is a failure. Shoppers feeling alienated and disliking supermarkets is just one negative effect of the tactic described in the stimulus.

D is incorrect bc it is not supported by the stimulus. We don't know whether this tactic would be good or not good for business.