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.

C is correct bc the fact that the orangutan initially pretends to ignore the tool and then later tries to use the tool to dismantle the cage in the zookeeper's absence, suggests that it is capable of deception. "Some" is "weak enough" to be supported by the stimulus.

E is incorrect. Just bc the chimp does not use the screwdriver as a tool does not mean it does not understand tool use. The chimp could very well understand tool use and just choose to play around with the screwdriver bc they have no desire to use it as a tool or dismantle their cage.

From stimulus:

Critics worry that pessimistic news reports abt economy --c--> lose confidence in economy

Everyone has direct experience every day with the economy.

Journalists say worry abt the effects of their job --> /(do job well)

People defer to journalists --> /(direct experience)

Bc the stimulus tells us people DO have direct experience with the economy, we can infer that they DO NOT defer to journalists on the economy. If people do not defer to journalists on this issue, these pessimistic news reports are unlikely to have a significant effect on people's feelings toward the economy. This line of reasoning matches AC D.

A is incorrect bc the issue is about whether news reports about the economy affect people's confidence/perceptions about the economy. It is not about whether people's confidence affects the economy.

B is incorrect bc the only inferences we can draw about that piece of info is if people defer to journalists --> then they have no direct experience (or the contrapositive of that statement). There is no support for classifying that relationship as having a negative impact.

C is incorrect bc it is not supported. The stimulus helps us infer that people do not defer to journalists about the economy. If they do not defer to journalists on this topic, it is unlikely that those news reports would dramatically effect their perceptions of the economy.

E is incorrect bc it is not supported. The well-being of the average citizen is not in the scope of the stimulus.

Key takeaway: Avoid adopting an overly literal interpretation!!!

I interpreted "history" in AC C to be referring to literal historical context (year/period it belongs to, significance of the painting, etc.), and since that info was not presented to the students in the stimulus I assumed it could not be correct. However, "history" in this context simply refers to the painting's origin and past. After adopting that more broad interpretation of the term, I understand why D is correct.

C is incorrect bc the stimulus is limited to two paintings. The two instances the stimulus speaks of is not enough to conclude that every student would like MOST of these paintings. We only know about two, not most.

radius of 49 km --> rate of flickering is best explained

gas ring such a close orbit (49 km) --> black hole spinning

C is correct bc the stimulus tells us the gas ring has been observed in a stable orbit around the black hole with a very close orbit of 49 km. This allows us to conclude that bc the gas ring has a very close orbit, the black hole must be spinning.

E is incorrect. The contrapositive does allow us to infer that black hole NOT spinning (aka stationary) --> /(maintaining an orbit w radius of 49km). However, we only know that if it is stationary --> it is NOT a radius of 49 km. We don't know if that means the radius must be more than 49 km.

@gcoleman124 The stimulus allows us to map this conditional chain:

successful economy --> flourishing scientific community --> young people excited (enough to become pro scientists) --> good communication

A reverses the sufficient and necessary condition of the last two links in the chain. The chain allows us to conclude young people excited --> good communication, meaning good communication is a necessary condition.

But that does not mean good communication --> young people excited (which is what A suggests). Here good communication is considered a sufficient condition.

The key takeaway is A --> B does not imply B --> A

B is incorrect bc the stimulus is solely concerned with the essayist's experience. It could still be the case that there are people who are both intelligent and wise, but the essayist just has not met anyone with both qualities. "In my own experience" is an assertion that limits our understanding to only the people that the essayist has personally met.

D is correct bc it asserts that nobody is wise and nobody is intelligent. This directly contradicts the essayist's statements. The essayist says, in their experience, the people they meet have one or the other of those qualities. That implies that at least some people are intelligent or wise. If no one were either intelligent or wise, the essayist's observation could not be true.

A is correct bc it's stated in the first paragraph.

B is incorrect bc the author does not make a comparison between modern and earlier societies in the passage.

C is incorrect bc it is not supported. The person claiming that we cannot separate our real needs from the alleged false needs is the author, not Marcuse. The author is pointing something out that would be the case if Marcusians are in fact correct. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense to say that statement is a claim that the author attributes to Marcuse. The author makes this claim about Marcuse's view, but it is not said by Marcuse himself.

D is incorrect bc totalitarian political systems are not discussed in the passage.

E is incorrect bc the author does not claim Marcuse thought false needs become real needs.