Almost chose C, but changed to D last second.

Realized that C is only attractive because the stimulus talks about how "different foods contain nutrients that are helpful for treating or preventing different health problems". However, it does not necessarily support the statement that any two people have different health problems. It only supports the fact that different foods have different nutrients for people with various needs. Not anything about the comparison of health problems between people.

D is correct because it is strongly implied that fad diets lack the nutrients in different foods because they "prescribe a single narrow range of nutrients". The argument goes on to then encourage people to eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, aka eat different foods containing different nutrients.

D is the correct answer.

The question calls for an answer that weakens the argument.

The stimulus can be broken down into:

• heavy salting of Albritten started 20 yrs ago

• now the groundwater has 100mg per liter

• nearby city with no salting only has 10mg per liter

• 250mg+ per liter will be too salty

• THEREFORE, if we keep salting Albritten, the water will be too salty to drink in the next few decades.

D is the correct answer because it offers the idea that Albritten's water was already salty 20 yrs ago (90mg vs 100mg today). It cannot be the salting that made it raise in saltiness.

This weakens the argument because if the saltiness is due to something else besides the salting, the continued salting of the roads will not necessarily render the water unpalatable in the next few decades.

E is the correct answer.

The stimulus can be diagrammed as so:

beautiful -s-> Persian cat -> pompous -> irritating

The question calls for an answer that must be false.

E states that:

irritating + beautiful -s-> /Persian

which cannot be true because the contrapositive of the stimulus is:

/irritating -> /pompous -> /Persian Cat

This is the only possible way to get to the conclusion /Persian cat. Therefore, E must be false.

B is the correct answer.

Stimulus can be understood as:

• some criminals with good motives deserve less severe punishments

• motives can be faked and disingenuous

• THEREFORE, judges should not lessen punishment on the basis of motives

We need a rule that allows the conclusion to be drawn. The rule must have the outcome that criminals will deserve punishment that is not mitigated on the basis of motives.

B is the correct answer because it establishes that the author believes that it is better for judges to give harsher punishments than lenient ones to reduce the risk of being swayed by disingenuous motive projections.

Simply,

lets say someone was caught stealing food just for the thrill of stealing. however, in front of the judge, they present their motives as stealing food to feed their hungry family. to reduce the risk of giving them an unfair punishment (one lesser than the one they deserve), AC B's rule states that it is better to always give harsher punishments. This is in line with the author's statement that motives should not be a determining factor for punishment.

C is the correct answer.

The question calls for a necessary assumption.

Stimulus can be diagrammed as below:

generators -> convert heat to electricity

steel -> leftover heat

--------------------

steel + generators -> save money on electricity

AC C provides that + generators will cover the cost of themselves. If purchasing generators would cost the engineers money out of pocket, it would not make sense for the conclusion to be that they would reduce their electric bills. Therefore, C must be true for the conclusion to follow.

A is the correct answer.

Stimulus can be diagrammed as so:

<50 ppl + >25% dup -> /funded

>25% dup

--------------

funded

Take the contrapositive:

funded -> /<50 ppl OR />25% dup

• since it is provided that it will duplicate more than 25% of the existing material, it must be that there are at least 50 people or more available for hire.

C is the correct answer.

Simply, the argument can be understood as:

very large (class sizes + teaching loads) = not good

------------------

very large + very small (class sizes + teaching loads) = not good

It is clear then, that we are missing a premise that describes why very small class sizes and teaching loads are bad, which C very explicitly states.

Yay!

A is the correct answer.

"responses collected at one time from many individuals of widely different ages" = survey

projected to

"hypothetical earlier responses of a single individual at some of those ages" = 48 year old man example, which kept referencing him to subsequent younger ages

A is the correct answer.

The question calls for an answer that is most strongly supported.

From the stimulus, we know that:

• Mature white pines:

  • intercept almost all sunlight

  • leave a deep litter

  • grow to great heights that leave little light to floor

  • white pines cannot grow in their own shade

We are to find an answer that is compatible with the situation where a dense forest has a stand of trees of which are all mature white pines.

A is the correct answer- we need to remember that since mature white pines are so greedy for sunlight, they don't allow opportunity for young trees to regenerate. It must follow that the trees standing now all came about around the same time, so that at the time they were all pre-mature, they were able to share resources/sunlight and not outcompete each other.

Lets breakdown A:

the ages of the tree in the stand do not differ from each other: lets assume they are all around 20 years old

the length of time it takes a white pine to grow to maturity: lets assume 10 years

A says, the ages of the trees in the stand do not differ by more than 10 years old- which means that they must have all had opportunity to grow and regenerate before there were established mature white pines (who would've prevented their growth). The difference in their ages do not exceed 10 years. There cannot be a tree which is 5 years old among the 20 year old trees because there would not have been enough sunlight for them to regenerate.

B is the correct answer.

The stimulus tells us:

• Wholesale price of one bottle has always been the same.

• Profit: Wholesale price minus costs

• All costs of producing bottle has been constant EXCEPT corks (x2 from before)

From this, we can infer that the bottles being sold today must bring in LESS profit.

Why?

Take for example:

1991:

Wholesale price: $10

Profit: $10- $3 (other costs) + $1 (cork fee) = $6 profit

Today:

Wholesale price: $10

Profit: $10- $3 (other costs) + $2 (cork fee) = $5 profit

* It must be true that the profits from each bottle TODAY is less than 1991.

Wow!! Thank you so much @J.Y.Ping and 7Sage team!! 🥺 I recently implemented all the older PTs into my drills and saw that there were zero comments for most, if not all of them. I started commenting my own personal processes in hopes of giving others a place to start if they ever decided to try older PT questions too. Never thought that it would get noticed!!

B is the correct answer.

The stimulus can be understood as so:

forest fires protect forests and their ecosystems

---------------------------------

/attempt to control

The question calls for a sufficient assumption AC that will allow the premises to connect to the conclusion.

AC B can be understood as:

attempt to control forest fire -> protection of ecosystem

more importantly, the contrapositive:

/protection of ecosystem -> /attempt to control forest fire

The connection has to be made that forest fires are in and of themselves protecting the ecosystem by helping them flourish through the facility of spreading seed pods, preventing overabundance of insects, etc. If we were to prevent the flourishing of forests, it would be detrimental to their ecosystems.

Therefore, the contrapositive of AC B states that if the ecosystem is not in need of protection, then human beings should not attempt to control forest fires.

Fitted into the stimulus:

forest fires protect forests and their ecosystems aka: /protection of ecosystem

/protection of ecosystem -> /attempt to control forest fire

---------------------------------

/attempt to control

E is the correct answer.

The author implies that increasing the number of police officers to remedy crime may not be the only way to do so through the evidence that there are other major cities with the same ratio of police officers to citizens who differ widely in crime.

They are essentially saying that City A and City B have 100 police officers each but City A has about 7% crime rate, while City B has 40%. Thus, it may not necessarily be a numbers problem. (lack of police officers)

The author implies that there are other factors which contribute to the difference in crime rate, as seen in AC E.

D is the correct answer.

The stimulus can be diagrammed as so:

A->B

/A

------

/B

D makes the same parallel flaw.

band to play -> most employees will attend

/band to play

---------------

/most employees will attend

C is the correct answer.

The question calls for an answer that describes how the author counters the objection.

Objection: Curtailing the school's three-month summer vacation would violate an established US tradition

Author responds by describing how the original policy came about (they were in rural areas where successful harvests depended on children's labor). If we are to follow the US tradition of determining the length of the school year, the author describes that it should be done "according to the needs of the economy", like how it previously was.

C describes the alternative understanding of the US tradition for the school year. It is not that the US chose 3 months for the sake of just tradition, but the quantity was rather determined by it's economic needs (harvests depended on children's labor)- which the author establishes should be used as a justified school year determinant.

B is the correct answer.

Question calls for an answer that allows the conclusion to follow.

"at least as many" = the same or more, but not less.

B says that Martown is within Seclee.

Since Martown is within Seclee, every Martown Tree is a Seclee tree. There could possibly be other trees within Seclee, not in Martown.

Analogy:

It can safely be concluded that there are at least as many trees in California as there are in LA.

B: California is the region within which LA is located.

The 5 trees in LA are also considered in the count of total California trees.

But there could be 5 trees in Anaheim, allowing for California to have more.

Therefore, California has at least as many (same or more, but not less) trees than LA.

Stimulus can be understood as below:

Deterioration can be slowed through use of anti-inflammatory drugs (AA)

Alzheimers-> cannot eliminate protein BA -> forms deposits

Microglia (immune cells) attacks deposits which also destroy healthy brain cells -> impairs cognitive functions

Conclusion:

Microglia (immune cells) is the cause of deterioration in Alzheimer’s.

B is correct because adding onto what we already know (that deterioration caused by microglia can be slowed through AA), if AA reduces the production of immune cells (aka microglia cells), then less of them will attack deposits which will lead to less destruction of healthy brain cells and ultimately less impairment of cognitive functions.

This supports the conclusion that microglia is the cause of deterioration because we are able to measure the change of deterioration through manipulation of the production of microglia with AA.

The stimulus only offers that AA can slow deterioration but doesn’t explain how. Answer choice B explains and streamlines the process, which thus further supports the conclusion.

A is incorrect because even if a deficiency in the brain’s immune system is the cause of a patient’s inability to eliminate BA, it does not support the overall conclusion that microglia is the cause of deterioration in Alzheimer’s.

B is the correct answer.

The stimulus can be simplified to:

A-> B

C <-s-> B

------------

C <-s-> A

Answer B:

Since all skyscrapers (A) are buildings (B).

Some buildings (B) are cabins (C).

-----------------------------

Some cabins (C) are skyscrapers (A).

*Remember, "some" conditionals can go on either side of the arrows.

A <-s-> B is the same as B <-s-> A.

A is the correct answer.

The question calls for an answer that describes the strategy used by the author.

The stimulus presents us with facts about exclusive items and how they are sold.

1. Exclusive items sell fast even though they are expensive.

2. Asking too low of a price when selling fast can make customers question the exclusivity of the item.

3. It is impossible to gauge in advance a price customers will accept.

Conclusion: Seller should list a higher asking price rather than lower.

A is correct because it describes the strategy used by the author. The author recommends listing the item on the higher end because it will not have the counterproductive feature (making customers question the exclusivity of the item) of the rejected alternative (listing a lower asking price).

The author recommends listing a higher asking price to avoid the consequence of a lower one.

D is the correct answer.

S's argument is built upon the premises that being able to fight and vote are equivalent actions so the government should allow 17 year olds the same right to vote.

T responds by saying that their argument would be true IF being able to fight and vote were the same kind of activity. T. goes on to distinguish the differences of fighting and voting.

D is the correct answer because T challenges S's premises (fight = vote) which support their conclusion.

D is the correct answer.

The questions calls for the flaw of the stimulus.

D is correct because the author concludes that seeing someone else yawn must be the most irresistible cause of yawning based on the opinions ("widespread...commonplace in many parts of the world in the past") in a matter that is largely factual (we can factually determine and measure if yawns are indeed triggered by seeing other people yawn).

popularity of belief is not the same as fact.

B is the correct answer.

The question calls for an answer that explains why children with middle ear infections are cured by antibiotics when antibiotics are known to have no effect on the virus.

B presents the idea that children infected with the virus are particularly affected by the bacteria within the middle ear. We know from the stimulus that antibiotics are effective in treating bacterial infections, so with this connection- it makes it possible that the ear infections are cleared up through the use of antibiotics. It does not claim that the virus itself is cured, which is in alignment with all the statements.

B explains that although the initial infection is viral, it makes children especially vulnerable to bacterial ear infections, which antibiotics can successfully treat.

D is the correct answer.

The question calls for an answer that would weaken the suggestion to have the subscription decisions determined by a journal's usefulness by measure of how frequent a journal is cited by the researchers.

D offers the idea that researchers' decisions to cite journals are externally affected (by how they think the journal is regarded by the leading researchers in the mainstream of the discipline) and thus would make the measure of citations skewed. Citations would not serve as an accurate representation of a journal's usefulness by this measure.

D is the correct answer.

The stimulus can be diagrammed as followed:

press -> profit-making

/profit making -> subsidy -> /honest journalism

D can be diagrammed as:

honest journalism -> profit making

-which is the contrapositive of the stimulus.

D is the correct answer.

stimulus diagram:

profit -> discount -> high sales -> mass taste OR exclusive access

The question provides that the bookstore does NOT care to mass tastes. Thus, we must conclude that:

profit -> discount -> high sales -> exclusive access

Answer choice D cannot be true because it claims that it does not have exclusive access but can sell at a profit. However, from the contrapositive of our diagram, we see that:

/exclusive access -> /high sales -> /discount -> /profit

It cannot be true that the bookstore is able to sell at a profit if it does not have exclusive access.