But for 9. can the "at all" part be supported by line 40?

-edit-

It is supported because we're only talking about the group that omits this perspective.

For 15, how do we know that the resource-procurement model was widely accepted?

I'm taking it there! I'd like to know as well

Man, D is such a stretch. Even if people with lower income are more likely to purchase older cars, does that mean they are purchasing older cars?! I would haven chosen it if the answer choice said "drive" instead.

Hmm.. interesting. I think there are two apparent flaws with the stimulus. First, the stimulus uses past evidence to predict a definite future. Second, it utilizes the part to whole flaw.

Luckily, I was able to spot the gap and chose B without hesitation timed. But, now during blind review, I'm having a hard time finding a reason to eliminate C because intuitively, C sounds good. So I'm going to attempt to articulate why C is wrong, besides the fact that it does not properly bridge the argument.

Refresher: As JY said, C is refering to a specific subset of the population [people who tune into the first episode and become loyal viewers]. Most of these people have not tuned in because of the television network's advertisement.

Negation: Most of these people have tuned in because of the television network's advertisement.

The negation should effectively destroy the argument, but in this case it doesn't. Let's say that the whole population of [people who tune into the first episode and become loyal viewers] is made up of 5 people. The television network's advertisement attracts 3 of these people. So what? The argument is about the advertisement's effectiveness (compared to advertisements favored by program's producers) to attract these people. So even if the television advertisement attracts "most" of these people, the advertisements favored by the program's producers would have attracted MORE (4 or 5 people). Therefore, C is unnecessary.

I got hung up on d, but d's just saying that the argument is employing circular reasoning!

I've been wondering the same thing! haha

For 16, I thought C was incorrect because it is only true in the case of clinical equipoise. But this is an "according to the passage..." question, meaning that the answer is what the author believes to be true. The author is in favor of clinical equipoise and believes C to be true based on lines 50-53.

Wow, a level 5 question so early on...

Breakdown: Businesses use surveys to improve profits. Oddly, profits declined in most businesses that used surveys but not in most businesses that did not use any surveys.

A. Which business increased in profits? We have no idea. We just know that the profits did or did not decline.

B. Ok, but this doesn’t resolve anything!

C. This gives us another reason for the decrease in profits!

D. Does it really make a difference if people respond 99% vs 100% accurately to the questions?

E. If the businesses that conducted surveys didn’t analyze the results, it would put them in equal footing with the businesses that didn’t conduct surveys at all. It wouldn’t explain why there is a dip in their profits.

Breakdown:

Context : Obscure unnecessary rules → quibble → unworthy of public confidence ; Code is widely accepted

P: Success → public confidence

C: We need to adopt an alternate code.

A. I wasn't entirely sure what intermittent meant when I took this timed. Regardless, I was able to eliminate this answer choice because it doesn't really do much for the argument. We want to look for an answer choice that weakens the link between P + C. A doesn't do this because we've already accepted that there are number of problematic rules in the traditional code. So who cares if it is intermittent or not?

B. Ok, so what if there is another motive to adopt the alternate code? It might still increase public's confidence.

C. Yup! If there are revisions to the traditional code addressing the problematic rules, is there really a need to adopt the alternate code? This weakens the bridge between P + C.

D. Really attractive trap answer choice. I think this attacks the premise. Generally, we shouldn't supposed to attack the premise.

E. I had to read this answer choice twice because of its use of referential phrasing. So it's saying for alternate codes, most of the provisions are not obscure (since few = most are not). This would actually strengthening the argument.

Ugh I thought 22. A was opposite of what Dost thought. Is NOT INDEPENDENT means that reality is DEPENDENT on experiences of individuals. Tricky wording

Ahh I remember reading Crime and Punishment in high school. Nice throwback!

Breakdown:

Paragraph 1:

Low resolution - 3 different positions.

MP - There are 2 opposing directions in Russian literary criticism: 1. art is above the present 2. art should be useful. D took a third position, in which reality was understood to be deeper and more than the tangible.

Paragraph 2:

Low resolution - Def. a reality.

MP - D believes reality is subjective and the writer's purpose is to make it so the readers believes it to be real.

Paragraph 3:

Low resolution - Def of artistic.

MP - D believes that literary work → artistic merit. Fulfill goal → fully realized work. According to D, art does not need to serve a political view.

Paragraph 4:

Low resolution - Art doesn't need to be useful.

MP - Critics believe that art must be useful, D says not necessarily so.

Great lesson!

This question sucked up a lot of time. I guess I wasn't properly warmed up.

Breakdown: Acid rain → calcium level in soil declines. Spur, fir, and SMTs need calcium. SMT in forests, that receive significant acid rain, are more likely to show signs of calcium decline than spures or firs in such forests.

My question: Why do SMT show more signs of calcium decline despite receiving the same amount of acid rain?

a. Ok, so what? Who cares about other ways it is damaged.

b. If this answer choice had said "more rapidly" it might have worked. But it doesn't. I'm left with more questions. If it deteriorates less rapidly, why are SMTs more likely to show signs of calcium decline?

c. Yup, this is it. It gives us a reason for the discrepancy described in the stimulus.

d. Umm ok? It doesn't address my question.

e. We're comparing SMT, spur, and fir in SIMILAR forests, receiving similar amounts of acid rain. Though this is a nice fact to know, it is irrelevant to our argument.

I think for D to be correct, B would have been stated in the argument.

Breakdown: Newspapers generally report on scientific studies that sound dramatic. There are more stories on small observational studies (SOS) than large randomized trials (LRT). Therefore, SOS must be more likely to have dramatic findings than LRT.

Problem: The argument seems to make a generalization based on a sample that may or may not be representative. How do we know that the type of stories in the newspaper accurately represents the results of SOS and LRT? We have no idea.

a. It does not question the motives of the reporters.

b. No. The journalist never says that studies that sound dramatic are exclusive to studies that are weak.

c. The argument does not confuse a claim.

d. This matches my prephrase somewhat. SOS is more common than LRT. So proportionately, we can't say that SOS is more likely than LRT to have dramatic findings.

e. This can be a really attractive wrong answer choice without a good prephrase. It can be eliminated because the journalist never makes a causal claim! Also, even if this was true, I don't think it does anything for the argument. Can we say that SOS is more likely than LRT to have dramatic findings? No idea, because this "side flaw", if true, is irrelevant to the argument.

For 26, I eliminated C because the answer choice mentions oxygen rate, without relating it back to the subtraction method. Let's say the baseline measurement for the amygdala was high and the subsequent measurement was the same. With the subtraction method, the net is 0. So how can we say that the amygdala at the time was most metabolically active?

Thank you all for reaching out! -- I am fully booked at the moment.

Interested as well :)

Breakdown:

Bacteria + household cleaning products → toxic vapors

Household cleaning products are found in landfills.

Therefore, converting landfills into public parks is damaging to one's health.

---

This is another question where close reading is vital. We know that there are household cleaning products in the landfills, but what about the bacteria? Without the bacteria, the sufficient doesn't trigger. We need to fill that gap and that's exactly what A does. A says that there is bacteria in some of the landfills that will be converted into public parks.

In a way, isn’t the existence of great artworks affecting the amount of aesthetic fulfillment derivable from contemporary art correct because the stimulus states that people can't derive more aesthetic fulfillment from contemporary art due to the current max? More than max is still an amount. Confused, help appreciated!

What would constitute a specific case for 17?

Does anyone know of any other LR questions similar to 16, in terms of the reasoning you have to implement?