This question is so weird I got it right by intuition alone.....

This is a weakening question. So the correct answer choice will most likely be a new piece of information that leads us to no longer grant the existing premises support in drawing the conclusion. A does this. A tells us that historically, art dealers lie when it comes to attribution for their own personal gain. Now that we know art dealers have always been liars, we can no longer use the existing premises to conclude that traditional attribution deserves special weight. In other words-- now that we know art dealers are liars, we can no longer grant special weight on the basis of historical continuity since historical continuity doesn't exist. Historical continuity is meaningless if art dealers have historically been liars.

B seemed to easy to be true Lol

got this question right not because my reasoning was in anyway similar to JY's, but because literally none of the other ones made sense Lol. Lucky guess?

sameee

Even if you did mistake D to mean that the 5 revealed nuclei as large as females but did not contract the disease, this answer choice would STILL not weaken the argument because correlations allow for non-corroborating data points.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong :)

After hearing the explanation, I totally understand why E is right! But like many of you, I also dismissed E under time constraint because I thought to myself "who the hell cares what landlords do?" Lol

The "even in the absence of credible evidence" is throwing me off.

The argument leads the author to conclude that because of the study, people hold onto their acquired beliefs "even in the absence of credible evidence."

So we need to weaken the argument by introducing something that no longer allows us to draw this conclusion despite the findings of the study to still be true.

How can D be the right answer if it talks about people having credible evidence?

Answer choice A and D are wrong for the same reasons. They both assume that knowledge of fish and heat must mean they know and live by ocean/sea. We can't make that assumption because you can still live in cold weather away from the sea and know what heat is (fire) and you can still live in cold weather away from the sea and know what fish are (ponds).

nothing like JY calling me dumb >>>>>

After BR, I could have SWORN the answer could not be A since it says "strong but conflicting views". Dr. Smith's views are not conflicting! She has anti-smoking beliefs and she is being considered for a panel about the dangers of smoking. If anything, her views align with the panel, making her biased.

And alright I'll bite-- the answer can't be C either because we don't care if the discussions are "lively" or not.

BUT I'M SO LOST! Because I was so sure that the keyword "conflicting" in answer choice A made it so wrong. Her views are anything BUT conflicting. #help please!

I know why D is correct but I don't know why A is wrong! #help

I should mention that E is correct because it weakens the argument not by attacking the premise, but by introducing a new piece of information that explains why the manager cannot rely on the low rate of injury alone to say the plant is safe.

Can someone better articulate why D is wrong? I ended up choosing the correct answer but I was going back and forth between D and E.

I thought D implied that because workers have only filed a few claims, the 3.2/200,000 rate of injury was an underrepresentation of the actual number of unsafe instances. Thus, D would weaken the managers claim that the plant was safe. #help

"Do not think about attacking the premise, do not think about attacking the conclusion-- rather, think about attacking the support."

hmmmm.... but if the premise IS the support and you are attacking the support, then aren't you still attacking the premise by virtue of attacking the support...

Maybe I am overthinking this and need to go walk my dog or something LOL.

The answer is C as opposed to A because C is supported by every premise in the passage as a whole while A is merely stated once as a singular premise.

In this question, the word "however" is not being used as a contextual separator. I usually use the word "however" as an indicator that the conclusion will follow since that is the case in most questions. Anyone else face this dilemma or have suggestions on how to help me out?

#help (Added by Admin)

I am wondering the exact same thing