Hey i think @castrone392 makes some great points. Just wanted to toss on more of a Lawgic view in hopes that it helps cement some points.
Seems like the first sentence and second sentence can combine into one large principle. And then the rest of the statements are just negating the NC in the principle which means you can take the contra-positive.
So "right to abandon efforts only if [group 2 translation] reasonably argued acceptable level is zero". The next few sentences then negate the NC so you can conclude they should continue to try to determine acceptable level and not abandon efforts (AC A).
Hey - I'm not completely sure I am understanding your question but will try to explain, hopefully something sticks.
So within the argument the stimulus is specifically trying to argue that it was those researchers' fault for the decrease in potato yield. It tries to do this through a veiled correlation --> causation phenom.
The correlation being - "hey we noticed you researchers were working on new strains, and hey over the course of the same period our potato yields went down." So, with that being said let's blame those researchers, it's their fault.
From there, what is the necessary assumption? Well we need it to be the case that it was those researchers who are at fault, and really block any other possible reason.
B is saying those old potatoes we used to grow, well there's now way they would hit 60 million, cause their minimum would be (idk pick a number) 75 million last year if they were being planted.
If you negate it, those old potatoes could have produced those yields last year, we can't really blame the researchers. Maybe 60 million is within their normal range for rainy seasons and it was a rainy season (I'm not an expert, completely made that up as an example). All this answer choice is doing is "blocking" an alternative reason.
Hope this helps!
Hey, I think your getting too caught up in the referential phrasing & leaving out important information when you try to translate it. So try looking at it without truncating the ideas.
Bus do environmentally right thing --> environmentally right thing makes good business sense
Now you could push up the common elements after, but I would make sure what's above makes sense to you first.
From there you can do define things however you want. Maybe even package the ideas in the following manner:
doRT = bus do environmentally right thing
MGBS = environmentally right thing makes good business sense
doRT --> MGBS
Just because the referent is in the SC does not mean they are the same ideas. One is talking about doing an action while another is talking about making good business sense. Sure, they introduce the environmentally right thing idea in the SC, but that doesn't meant you can drop the rest of the NC & then switch.
Hope this helps.
Hey, so I'm not sure how good of a habit it is to correct games midway through... to have a plan to "correct" errors midgame would mean somewhat accepting that it will happen. I know exactly what you are talking about, personally was there as well, but I think focusing on not making mistakes upfront is a much better strategy. To do that, a simple strategy would be: stop & think about each rule, even if it doesn't seem like you can make inferences - do a couple 'plays' of the game to get a feel, and be organized for each question (that way you can reference past game boards).
For me, the -0 didn't come until I had the easy games down pat (oddly enough). It wasn't when I could do the harder games within the time, but instead when the easy games were WAY under the target time. This would help ensure that I had all the time I needed for the harder games.
This coincidentally meant I stopped making incorrect inferences because I knew I had the time & could stay level headed through the harder games.
Some time saving strategies I implemented - understanding the question type (how to hunt for a MBT, CBT and MBF), having the past game boards referenceable, and really understanding SC vs NC triggering. From my own experience, these strategies & pushing on the easy games led to the -0 happening.
I know this might not be the answer you are looking for, but I hope it helps! I'm by no means an expert, but have been through your stage, understand how it's frustrating & hoping that someone else struggles a little less than myself.
Hi, so there's a couple issues with D & E, hopefully some points will resonate.
D - from quick glance, 2 aspects are sticking out. First, do we know outsiders must be prevented? What if all that's necessary is that insiders need to not listen to outsiders. What if all that's needed is for insiders to take other steps, but not necessarily "prevent" outsiders. This statement is narrow. Additionally, we don't know if participation in efforts is the same as imposition. Impose is much more negative, and severe, while participation is rather broad.
E - so in the stimulus it lays out independence being a critical thing. Does this mean the more of independence, the more progress? Not necessarily. Consider your favorite blend of coffee & creamer. The more creamer, is not always the case of being better cup of coffee. Similar in that sense, just because we know something helps progress, we don't know that more of it will improve progress by even more.
Full disclaimer, I got to A through POE. With A though, you can see they don't make the participation to imposition gap. Also, it's taking the conditional statement in the stimulus and contraposing it. So, any imposition threatens independence and therefore progress would translate: Impose--> threaten independence --> threaten progress. So not threaten progress --> /impose
Hope any of this helps!
Yeah ofc. So ad hominem in the sense that we learn new information about this said florist. Prior, with only the information in the stimulus, we only know the details about the job (this person delivers flowers and those flowers are sometimes accompanied with letters). With this answer choice, if we take it to be true as we should, well now we might be able to say in the past they delivered flowers & have not messed up in the past. In most respects it's similar to the "trend" you describe, but I meant ad hominem in the sense that its specific to this one florist, not all florists.
For example: you have Dentist S, pulling teeth. Will they mess up next year? I would say that learning about this person's track record, their dental schooling, their experience are all aspects that come together and make this person who they are. But does this mean they will not mess up next year? We can't definitively say anything, maybe mid-operation the power goes out, and they trip and fall. Despite their perfect track record, amazing education and longstanding practice, anything could happen. And yeah if it doesn't touch on the arg, eliminate.
In my experience, yeah past => future is usually a bad argument form. I'd love to commit to saying past to future is bad in all cases, but unfortunately I cant commit to a general rule cause anything could happen.
And yeah, I picked this up from JY. A lot of the tempting AC for weaken questions do not actually weaken. Given the AC, you can only answer "maybe" or "probably". To me this means to completely weaken this argument you are making outside assumptions. So at that point I move on because each AC alone, without any outside assumptions, should be able to weaken.
Hope any of this helps!
Hi, so I will try to address both Q1 & Q3.
Q1- I think the statement "there's a first time for everything" is implying that track record of the past is irrelevant when considering a specific instance. Just because they have or have not made a mistake before is irrelevant towards the argument - it's almost like an ad hominem attack in the sense that it's adding details about a person's character but not touching on the argument.
Q3 - Yes, even if you take it to be a true statement, it does not invalidate the conclusion that follows. For me, this usually is how I eliminate AC. Because she has been perfect at her job before - does this mean in this very specific instance, she has also performed perfectly? On the other hand, if she is mistake prone, can we conclude that she made a mistake again? I think at best, in each of these scenarios, most would answer "maybe" or "probably?". To me, this is the mark of a tempting answer choice. It doesn't definitively deny the gap, it's just playing to our biases.
Hope this helps!
I am by no means an expert, but have seen a ton of improvement by using old versions of the test (PT 1-16). I didn't necessarily take them as a test, but instead have used them to drill. Overall, there are minor differences (no dual passage for RC, sometimes Parallel Reasoning & Parallel Flaw distinction might not be made and LR is generally a bit less rigorous), but have not found any of it to be "hurting" my progress.
Awesome thanks @nasrinlin530 & @andrewyang9999298
@nasrinlin530 love the explanation. Not necessarily related to the question, and somewhat tangential, but curious by what you mean as a "NA type strengthener". Figured that's a cool way to think about it & I've never heard that before, have you identified the other sorts of "strengthener" types?
Awesome, thank you both @dimakyure869 & @fyepes582
Hi, would really appreciate any thoughts on this question. My understanding of the stimulus is as follows:
Support NT --> /chance of elect.
Und E -->/support NT
Conclusion: Und E --> Chance of elect.
I'm not entirely sure how the AC follows from this. Thank you in advance!
I'm not an expert, but could it be the difference between flex & the old version?