you can treat this like a resolve question. i noticed that there is a discrepancy in the argument and so far D was the one that resolved it.

My thought process.

take the answers to be true and see if it absolutely wrecks the argument.

A: The stimulus doesn't give support on what the motives are. therefore wrong.

B: it's saying if its dramatic, it can also be strong scientific evidence. i really dont see how this connects. and let's say i do. i have to fill in so many assumption gaps and it will waste my time. this is how ik this isn't the right answer

C: the argument is confusing a claim with another claim. i didn't even bother to read what the content of the claim is because there's no confusion with claims here. i already knew that it's cherry picking, so that isn't the right flaw.

D: i took this to be true and i saw how it absolutely wrecked the argument. as JY says the proportion for small observational studies must be so big compared to large ones, which is why it's on newspapers.

E: this is a causal defect. not the flaw were looking for.

because it's still using the same reasoning that is consistent with the stimulus, so it makes the conclusion more right.

argument says: organic factors are not distributed evenly around the globe.

B says: the nutritional factors that helps create those deficiencies are different in each culture. in other words, nutritional factors creates those differences in organic factors, which is why organic factors are not distributed evenly around the globe.

it's still using the same reasoning that is consistent with stimulus. unlike C, it is a completely different alternative. not banking on anything. making it the right answer choice out of the bunch.

girl mine was 5 hahha

i didnt know what spurious meanssss ughh

its sufficient because it guarantees the sufficient to be 100% true. but its not necessary because the argument doesn't need the disposal of tanning waste produced with biological catalysts and the disposal of waste produced with the conventional process be the same .

the way i think for necessary is like you have to think in terms of desperation. will this argument survive without it? yes it can because there are other ways to ensure that costs in the biological version is less costly than the version in the conventional process.

D absolutely shows that this is the bare minimum this argument needs to even reach that conclusion

okay so how i got this right is because i treated the answer choices like the PSA lesson where its stimulus: application and AC: principle, while keeping in mind the conclusion which is

no one should take love (in the context of a marital vow) to refer to feelings

i chose the answer that allowed the principle to be illustrated that is relevant to the argument. So far D was the only one to decently do it.

A: imagining this principle, it's so vague. okay, so none of our feelings are within our control like even hate. and just to relate it to the stimulus, let's include the feeling of love. that's really as far as it goes. it doesn't even help our conclusion. plus this was already stated in the stimulus, so if that didn't help how is this better version of what the stimulus said going to further help? ]

B: a scenario im imagining here is i promise to love you. and b says people shouldnt make promises that is not within their control. so i promise to love you and this feeling of mine might change (this isn't in my control btw). greaattttt. but our conclusion is no one should take love (in the context of a marital vow) to refer to feelings. i dont see how this illustration connects it there, so i striked it out. if i wanted to make it work, i had to think of more unwarranted assumptions and thats bad.

C: im imagining Love can also mean another feeling, like jealousy? ok. connecting it to conclusion. i don't see how this applies. so bye.

D: imagining this is like i made a promise to you that i love you. this may change ofc because its not in my control. and the argument said this does not make sense. "this" refers to the promise. the argument said this is a promise to LOVE, so its almost used synonymously in this context. sooo this promise to love does not make sense because your feelings change. it's the only one that connects it to the conclusion. not the best answer, but does the job compared to the rest.

E: im imagining i promised to love you. but i didn't keep it, like i dont love you anymore. so it doesn't make sense. but the stimulus just merely says feelings are not in our control, not really talking about promises that aren't kept. we cant to prove again the conclusion that love shouldnt be used in the context of feelings. so E can't really show us that proper illustration.

this was my thought process. hope it helps.

C helps properly draw out the conclusion because it implicitly, meaning not explicitly stated, connects high inaccuracy with unreliability. This is common in the higher difficult questions.

It's also why JY says you shouldn't focus on a particular "formal" language, which in other words means, dont always expect to find the answers that you anticipate. Because there are different variants of how it could be said. Hence this example. Instead, understand the relationship. Once you understand the relationship, there are some answer choices that force you to reasonably make an implicit assumption and there is no other way but that.

C was the best answer because it was the only answer out of all the answers that connected it to the conclusion, BY FIRST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT REASONABLE IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION. the other answers had to force WAY MORE UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS.

remember you can make reasonable assumptions. this is typical in the harder questions.

when you encounter a word you don't know, best thing to do is to first do POE to narrow your choices. Then, using contextual clues and how the stimulus is structured, it sort of hints at what should be the focus for the AC.

assuming that you were able to narrow down your choices to two, you should first take, as what JY says, the "kernel" of the sentence, or if you can briefly cut the sentence down to just its main idea. This way you can get the focus of the answer and see which is more relevant to the stimulus. Then you just give your best try on what the word means.

doing this gives you more of a foundation on how to approach a word you don't know compared to when you're left completely mind-blanked. The context is already there and if you understand the stimulus, it gives you a hint on what it means.

I think you should master the relationshiop between sufficiency and necessary. The basics are to first know the indicators.

For necessary, its usually only, necessary, requires etc. As we can see in B, it has that word ONLY.

so it would be diagrammed as responsible -> preventable consequences.

That's an answer were not looking for because it giving an answer in which it makes the conclusion a sufficient. We are looking to prove the conclusion correct, so the conclusion shouldn't be in the sufficient side.

dumbed down translation:

Vanessa: computer codes must be written by a pair of programmers to prevent only one person from understanding the code that is being made

Jon: best programmers carry the team. they are really productive compared to the rest. these best programmers work best alone, so the most productive programmers must work alone.

What i am getting: 1. if you are most productive→work alone

2. if you are most productive→work alone

we are looking to find something that violates these principles.

A: fact is they are average so must work together. consistent with rules so out

B: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out

C: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out

D: yolanda is most productive, so she must work alone. but this answer says she's working with someone. violates rule so this is the answer.

E: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out.

we are also finding a conclusion and/or statement. and this conclusion and/or statement have to be 100% correct, which is why the question stem is called MBT. The answer you're finding is a conclusion and/or statement that is 100% supported by the stimulus.

yess. How i thought of it was that, what if in the beginning, it was already naturally resistant to the current antibiotics? so that made E wrong. The comparison from now vs before is what kept that answer choice bad.

damn got all the hard questions right, then the lowest level question got me haha