Q10. To look for a ”most likely to agree” answer, we shall be looking for a gentle inference. The wrong choices are normally either “too extreme” or it’s a “comparison”:

A. “can play a role” - gentle inference

B. “the most part” - extreme

C. “more effective” - comparison

D. “too little attention” - extreme

E. “inadequate funding” - NA

The same strategy goes to Q11:

A. “must be approved” - extreme

B. “must” - extreme

C. “Can be beneficial” - gentle inference

D. “must” - extreme

E. “most effective” - extreme

Again to Q12:

A. “must” - extreme

B. “must” - extreme

C. “should not be owned exclusively by the state?” - no

D. “should be … when possible” - gentle inference

E. “belong to the individual?” - no

Q13 To most of us, B and E were the tricky ones since “aesthetic judgment” could also be one of the “motives.” However, in the passage, the author said they were sold to foreign collectors who “rightly admired them.” This only approves the ”aesthetic judgment” but not the “motives,” since they could “admire” their beauty, so they bought them for resell or other purposes.

The quickest way is to figure out that the stimulus is talking about the relationship between "people with amusia" with tone and timing - only answer B shows this relationship. Others are either too general, like A and C; or wrong subjects, like E; or the wrong generalization, like D. Another reason D is wrong is that it says "not at all on the perception of timing," we don't know if that is true! It could be that they BOTH play a role, so the absence of one (discerning tones) made them amusia.

I hope this helps!

I had the same thought but I think these "never" were more like referential conditional than logic conditional.

Hope it helps.

I wouldn't take the first two sentences as sub-conclusion. "Many people claim" is almost always NOT the conclusion or even the opposite of the conclusion.

Look at the question. it says:

(For many people) high simple carb → overproduce insulin → energy or fat

A says:

(People with low fat diet) if need energy → avoid simple carbs. Despite the different scopes in these two statements, you can also notice that option A satisfied the og argument's necessary condition, which won't lead us to anywhere.

Now look at C:

People wants to avoid fat → limit high simple carb. Exactly what the argument was talking about.

Hope this helps.

B says “Few of late are abstract”,

Forget the translate, just looking at the relationship is talking about "late" and "abstract" with late on the left side of the arrow.

However in the stimulus, we do not have anything after “late.” Thus this relationship does not even exist.

premise: less bio teach but not research professor are appointed to admin positions

conclusion: bias scientific professor against these failing pursing research

anticipation for weakening:

1. other scientific professor who does not do research makes up the most admin role

2. bio professor does research are appointed even less than these who does research (AC B)

Can we understand it as :

An arrangement of objects is aesthetically pleasing (enough) by giving the impression (that the person succeeded in arranging objects as attempted).

Or

An arrangement of objects that gives the impression (that the person succeeded in arranging them as attempted) is aesthetically pleasing.

Since "to the extent that" means "to a particular degree or stage, often causing particular results"?

#help

A simplified version of Q23 is: that the conclusion is "most strongly supported" if the answer below completes the argument, which means the argument is NOT complete in the stimulus and we are tasked to identify the right choice to complete it. So it's an "up" question, the right answer will be either bridging the gap between premises and conclusion or adding another missing premise, which essentially is a strengthen question. If the question asks "the conclusion will be justified if the answer is assumed," then it's a sufficient assumption question.

The key is to distinguish which part, the stimulus or the right choice, is taken as granted. For MSS, we take the stimulus for granted. If the stimulus is true, then the right answer is true - the flow goes down. For sufficient assumption, we take the right answer for granted. If the answer is true, then the argument in the stimulus is true - the flow goes up.

"all the players who have picked the five numbers drawn at the end of the week share the money pot" indicates that the chance of each number to be drawn is not affected by how many people choose them, it only affects how many people are sharing the winner's money once that number was picked.

I chose E since I thought the conclusion says 1984 has a good influence on people because 2nd many people chose it to be but how would it be true if they did not actually read it?

Then the stimulus actually says 1985 exercise influence on a great number of ppl... then it makes sense to care about the number instead of the truthfulness of the argument.

I think it's ok! In weaken questions we accept the assumption is right and thinking what is the assumption here to validate the conclusion. In this question:

P: Only least expensive, least skilled human labor robots are designed.

C: Bots will not eliminate demeaning work, only substitute.

Assume: demeaning work = the least expensive and least skilled human job. 100 product makers = 100 machine operators for the same kind/amount of work.

A: didn’t mention manufacturing

B: not a circular argument

C: not the same subject term

D: irrelevant

E: correct because it states demeaning work =/ least expensive and least skilled human job. 100 product makers = 1 machine operator for the same kind/amount of work, eliminate 100 vs create 1 which is a significantly greater.

Hi I'm interested!

If you are talking about the question about popular uprisings vs sunspot activity, below are my thought process:

Phenomenon: occurrence of popular uprising & near-maximum sunspot activity

Further observation of the phenomenon:

heavy sunspot activity - sharp rise ions in air - make ppl anxious and irritable

Conclusion: likely sunspot activity is a factor triggering popular uprisings.

Basically, author pointed a correlation of two things and a link of causes/effects to discuss why these two things are correlated and that is one is possibly a factor of causes for another.

The correct answer E demonstrated a correlation between productivity & corner offices with more windows. By providing a casual relationship of "abundant alert light - more alert," it concluded that the great productivity is "probably" "at least in part a result" of the corner offices.

While C also talks about a correlation between cold weather & rise in fuel prices, its casual relationship is more tight (single factor) and direct. Moreover, its conclusion is a prediction instead of explanation of the past/present. If C would be right, the stimulus should conclude as "Therefore if there's a popular uprising next year, it would be a result of the heavy sunspot activity."

Hope this helps :)

Hi Alex, if I am understanding your questions correctly - MSS means Most Strongly Supported question, I would say it has been helpful for me personally. It helped me to focus on what I am looking for while reading the passage thus I will be able to understand them in a time crunch.

I actually confused between A vs B but chose A because the passage talks about how a reproduction’s accuracy depends on the original accuracy, while B is solo talking about the painting’s accuracy.

Stim:

Og painting is not good -so- the rep painting is not good.

Wrong Answer B:

Painting is ugly if the scene is ugly -unless- it is distorted.

Correct Answer A:

Speech is not good -so- the tape(rep) is not good.

So basically if A → B, then the contrapositive should be /B → /A.

The passage says "new tech that out roles" leads to "undermine the values of the current system." So it's contrapositive should be C, "no change value" leads to "no change of tech.''

For answer C, with "no" we know we can use the group 4 method, which is to pick either side, negate, and make it the "necessary condition." So the sentence would be A brown dwarf is a celestial object with no lithium. Which is what the last sentence of the premise indicated.

1. BD’s mass > planets

2. BD’s mass = Sun, lit, coz mixing nuclear furnaces is incomplete

4. Star’s mass < Sun, no lit, coz fully mixed

5. BD - lit, coz no functional nuclear furnace

A: wrongly negate 4

B: conflicts with 5

C: negate version of 5, correct answer

D: conflicts with 5

E: we only know BD and stars, so nothing about mass less than BD was mentioned in the premise

Premise:

Endosymbiosis is the engulfing of one organism by another so the former one becomes a functioning part of the latter.

Nucleomorph is found in a plant called Chlorarachniophyte.

Two “particular genes” have been found in this nucleomorph.

It was expected to be only one if this nucleomorph were not the remains of an engulfed.

Indicated conclusion:

This nucleomorph would be a result of endosymbiosis - E.

A: did not mention it in the premise. “Only” is pretty extreme.

B: “hold all the genetic material” conflicts with “particular gene” from the premise.

C: It’s more likely that the chlorara engulfed another organism.

D: “Will not” “unless” indicate a strong logical relationship that the premise did not mention.

Another question emphasizes the importance of the level of affirmation. Some /= any. May be /= is.

Attempt to share my thought process since comments are not happy with the video, reply if you wanna discuss!

Premise:

Context: Chronic back pain (CBP) is usually caused by a herniated or degenerate spinal disk.

Start of argument: (But) many people (⅕ over 30yrs) have h/ded spinal disk but no CBP

Conclusion: If CBP later develops (for these people mentioned about), it’s generally due to deterioration of ab&spinal muscle from insufficient exercise.

It’s a “most strongly support (MSS)” question so we assume the argument is right and look for a conclusion that can be indicated from the argument.

A: “for sure” is too strong, notice we have words like “usually” and “generally” from the premise?

B: again too strong and how could we know they do not have other problems that would contribute to CBP?

C: I failed for this one at first because the premise said 1 out of 5 has the h/ded disk shows no chronic symptoms. The other ⅘ is not “rarely” and “no chronic symptoms” does not mean no “mild and fleeting pain.”

D: “accurately predict” is too strong again

E: We can conclude from the premise that regular exercise might help which could be a “strategy that can be effective”. This option not only is supported by the premise but is the only one that matches the premise’s level of sureness .

Would appreciated to be added into the group if not too late!

I'm interested!