Consider a parallel argument that is easier to understand but makes the same flaw:

Despite broad support from the public for $2000 checks from the federal government, this policy will have mainly negative consequences it it is passed, especially as it relates to the national deficit. Great leaders have the ability to make financially sound decisions in the face of demands of excessive expenditures; so the Republicans ought to do the same by not voting in favor of the bill.

Flaw: There may be non-economic reasons for supporting the bill that justify passing the policy. sure, the bill may have negative economic consequences, but it may make political sense for Republicans to vote in favor of the proposal if they want to perform well in the 2022 midterm elections.

Consider a parallel argument that is easier to understand but makes the same flaw:

The lithium battery is bound to bring an end to the tradition of high school graduates taking a road trip with friends across America. This is because road trips, made possible by access to cheap gas, facilitated the boom in such trips back in the 70s. Currently, gas is becoming replaced by lithium batteries as the most popular source of power for cars. Thus, it is inevitable that the tradition of high school graduates taking road trips will end in the near future.

Answer: just because cheap gas prices enabled such road trips to arise does not mean that they will disappear after cheap gas prices are no longer the norm. Teenagers could very well continue this tradition using lithium-powered cars.

Interested!!

Interested!

Interested!

Learn French!

Context: two major studies were conducted to see if procedure x causes disorder y

Prem: the occurrence of disorder y is very small (0.02), so a larger than 1100 sample size was needed

Conclusion: the two studies are flawed

A) because the studies are flawed, we do not know

B) CORRECT, because "but" was used and the rest is premises

C) A reasonable statement, but that is not the main point the author is making.

Also, the studies need not be more extensive, simply larger

D) Factually incorrect, since the studies concluded there was no link

E) We do not know what medical experts think.

In the debate as to whether this is a NA question or an SA question, I would argue this is a SA question- or at the very least it can be treated as an SA question for all intents and proposes. Whenever I have seen the words "properly draw" in the question stem, it has been an SA question (please correct me if I'm wrong here by referencing a counter-example below).

With this in mind, I like others in the comments faced a crossroads between C and E. Both provide a conclusion in which psychologists should never do something. The crux of the difference is between C: "might be less than high quality" and D: "makes it unlikely to be high quality." In my opinion, it helps to treat "less than high quality" as a term that is not defined in the stimulus- because it technically isn't. In the stimulus, we are told that satisfying a certain demand is incompatible with "high-quality" psychological help. In this case, incompatible could very well mean that psychological help is impossible to administer should such a demand to entertain be imposed. The stimulus does not provide us with information regarding the degree of quality of psychological help, so we do not know the definition of "less than high-quality psychological help".

Another choice E does not get its hands dirty with the use of this new term by using "high quality" directly. I believe that's one way to arrive at E as the correct answer.

I've found that the RC section requires you learn certain skills in order to do well. The below basic skills have been very helpful for me. If I were you, I would do reading passages while keeping two or three of the below in mind.

When line cited, try to generate your own answer before going into ACs

When you can’t generate, look for wrong answers

Quickly find and eliminate incorrect answers

Take the time to understand the question! Don’t answer the wrong question

Worry less about speed and more on comprehension.

Keep LR brain active when answer RC questions. By this I mean eliminate obviously incorrect answers like you would in LR.

7.. Have either very apparent or independent reasons to eliminate the answer choice.

I don't think you need to add experimental section if you are not prone to fatigue. That being said, while you are studying I would focus on doing sections rather than tests until you are hitting your goal number of questions correct. For example, if fatigue is not an issue, then do LR sections timed until you hit -3/-4. Once you are hitting your goals for each section, start doing timed tests.

Watching this in combination with the "weakening" curriculum has been very enlightening. Weakening questions are difficult because the assumptions made are very subtle. Necessary assumptions are not just subtle, they are elusive. These assumptions are so ingrained into my everyday thinking that I fail to appreciate their significance. Nevertheless, an elusive assumption is not impossible to identify. Keep studying and you can do it!

I have trouble ascertaining the tone of the author. Any tips on how you all approach questions regarding author's tone?

#help (Added by Admin)

Very tricky question because I set up the diagram around a different conclusion. This made it difficult for me to figure out the correct answer.

Very tricky question because I set up the diagram around a different conclusion. This made it difficult for me to figure out the correct answer.

I answered this question correctly but spent too much time on it. I think this was challenging for me because I read "athletes, who need to improve their muscle mass" as "athletes who need to improve their muscle mass." That once comma made all the difference.

following! I'm in the same situation.

4)

In Spain, most gold coins were minted from gold mines in modern Senegal.

(i.e. some gold coins were minted elsewhere)

Gold content from mines in Spain allowed coins to be minted without refining the gold. They can be identified

by the fact that they have a 92% gold content.

The mints could create other kinds of coinds with higher gold content, but Senegalese gold coins were always 92%

A) The weights of the coins may have been different, even if proportion of gold was the same

B) This is correct as per the first sentence and the last sentence- some gold coins were minted outside of Senegal,

so they had less than 92% gold content. But, this cold could have more than that after refinement.

C) Monetary value was not discussed in the stimulus

D) Not supported, since we know that some gold coins were minted with content less than 92% gold

E) Not true, other places with mines of unrefined from which coins could be minted.

This question turns on the phrase "a great number." Consider the conclusion: George Orwell's book 1984 has exercised much influence on a great number of this newspapers readers." What exactly constitutes a great number? It's relative. In a survey of 1000 it could be 100, 200, 300, or so on. But the information you definitely need, no matter what constitutes a great number, is how many people chose 1984 as their book. All other information is pretty irrelevant to what constitutes "a great number." (B) is the only answer that provides this information.

I was able to eliminate answer choice A because the mistake the stimulus makes is considering a sufficient condition (media coverage) to be necessary condition. Media coverage of the museum event drew attendance, but that does not mean that it is the one and only way the museum could have had a large attendance. A is a tricky answer choice because it acknowledges the confusion happening between necessary and sufficient, but presents it the other way. The correct answer is that the argument confuses a sufficient condition for the museum's remaining open with a necessary condition for the museum's remaining open. This statement is semantically similar to D.

Does this make any sense?

I was unable to get this question right under timed conditions, and it's a clear sign that I have to practice diagramming the logical relationships for MBT questions more quickly and accurately.

It made a lot more sense for me to view this question as a principle/insight questions rather than a MSS. If this were MSS, it is difficult to argue that C does not make sense. During the first phase of the Industrial Revolution it was more advantageous to be skilled rather than unskilled given that unskilled labor would be replaced with machines. C matches pretty perfectly with this idea. However, C does not make sense if the question seen as a principle/insight since it does not take under consideration how both the example from past and today can be used to derive a historical insight/principle.

The tricky part about this question is that the assumption made in the conclusion is very subtle-- it is one of causation between red cars and accidents. But the author does not simply conclude "thus, red cars cause accidents." Rather, the stimulus concludes that there would be no loss of life if there were no red cars. In other words, the conclusion drawn is the contropositive form of the more intuitive answer. That's the first challenge. To add further complications, the stimulus states "if this claim was true." Suddenly, we cannot say that the assumption the author makes is false (in this case the conditional assumption that some lives would be saved if red cars were banned) because we are asked to consider this clearly false assumption to true. Answer choice E attempts to emulate this conditional assumption but gets it wrong by adding an "every," making it a universal claim--which is simply not the same. When under pressure, it makes sense that I was too distracted to see that E is the incorrect answer, or else I would have picked C from the process of elimination.

However, a much easier way to approach this question would have been to identify the conclusion as making a false causation claim and simply pick C. Moving forward I should focus on the conclusion and ask myself, "How did the author arrive at this conclusion from the context." Taking 5 seconds to think about this would have allowed me to get this question right.

Hi everyone, thanks so much for showing interest! We already have the six people, but if there are any openings I'll be sure to message you individually. Good luck studying!

following!

One clarification I would like to make is that the stimulus may not mean "personal views" in the sense of ones view on life, politics, etc. I think it referring to one's personal view of what is satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance. Given that the regulations are vague, an employee may think they did a satisfactory job but if the superior disagrees with that person's personal view then the employee could be fired. Thus, a difference in personal views can lead to an employee being fired. Nevertheless, the answer is clearly (B), since the author must assume that only supervisors can interpret rules and regulations.