Looking for anyone that would be interested in having a virtual study group session on weekends. Having trouble focusing on studying on weekends and would really benefit from having a scheduled time to study with people virtually. Also would enjoy talking through difficult questions, study strategies, etc. Preference for those in PST but open to CT/ET as well. Currently scoring around 166.
D most weakens because it shows a case of how environmental factors ie twins growing up with each other actually changes their inclinations. Directly weakens the argument that inclinations are genetic and not subjected to the environmental.
I AGAIN mixed this up... I thought it was a strengthening question and not a weakening question...Basically have to show why the companies are correct--> consumers don't have to take full responsibility for mysterious specification, as a personal computer is sold as part of a package. A is wrong because it doesn't actually explain what to do with the switches and jumpers, just explains the purposes of it.
B is wrong. because just because there's a lot of coal in the air doesn't mean there's not a lot of other pollutants as well.
I chose A originally but that was incorrect because it doesn't matter if the original statements were actually correct, what matters is what the participants in the study were told. D gives alterative explanation - they did have evidence actually in the form of some sort of confirmation.
I chose B but this was wrong because it basically just restates what Cora had said first that typewriters were replaced by the standard keyboard. It doesn't actually explain WHY the keyboard layout stayed the same UNLIKE A which basically said people were used the other layout which is why demand for that layout persisted.
I somehow thought this was a strengthening question, so I chose B. But it's actually looking for something to WEAKEN the results of the study ie where it presented an alternative reason that explained why students had a high GPA and it was NOT because of chess, weakening the study's results.
I assumed it was a casual claim - that was my mistake. I have to be careful in differentiating. between casual and correlative claim. Therefore, D makes the most sense because the argument assumes that all is equal, all else is health. D shows how this isn't true.
Weakening questions where the answer choice casts doubt on the methods of the study is a common one we have seen before. Of course, the question attacking the fundamental idea of the study - which is the idea of improvement - is going to be the correct answer. I put D originally but I see now that C is the better answer choice and the issue with D is it does not refute the idea there's basic commonality between the different types of psychotherapy.
E is not the correct anwer because at outside North American declining application submission rate would decrease the overall submission rate. This would weaken the argument that North American student interest in choosing an art history career is declining - arguably, it's not declining, it's student interest outside of North American that's declining.
B most directly answers the question because it specifically refutes the underlying argument that the research states being that genetic similarities determine a shared common ancestry. B states that genetic similarities do not mean that two animals have a shared common ancestor.
I know they mentioned here about identifying "reasoning patterns" like the historical, probability, etc. Does anyone have a list of these patterns? #help