From a 144 diagnostic to a final score of 165 (second try), it's been a crazy year. I already have offers (including full-tuition) rolling in. It was a daunting task being a few years post-grad and working full time, but this program made it possible. THANK YOU!
..and you reading this (yes, you) can do it too!
Chose E in the timed and changed it to C in BR after failing to see the "oldest trick in the book." (facepalms)
I need to remember we can change the premise as long as we don't negate what it has already said! This is what made me shy away from AC (D), since the information changes the understanding of the premise. It doesn't deny its existence though!
Looking to support the conclusion? → SA*
Looking to support the argument (as a whole)? → NA
*the only SA above that did not contain the word "conclusion" was "Which one of the following, if true, justifies the above application of the principle?" which can intuitively be read as "Which one of the following, if true, justifies the conclusion that the above principle applies?"
You are correct in your understanding of sufficient condition and necessary condition and your example maps out correctly, but what JY is talking about are sufficient ASSUMPTIONS and necessary ASSUMPTIONS.
So, given your example let us say that being the best jockey in the world is not enough to know that you are short in stature, but we could introduce a sufficient assumption that says you are from England that, paired with your first premise, would make this a valid argument. So your SC now includes your original premise and the new SA (that you are from England).
Best jockey in the world + from England(SA) → being short in stature
sufficient condition → necessary condition
The necessary assumptions are more of the unspoken things that MUST be true in order for this argument to even take place. Another way to think about it, if you negate any of the necessary assumptions your entire argument falls apart.
So, what MUST be true to allow this argument to work? A few examples:
- you are alive
- you know what a horse is
- you can ride a horse
If any of these NAs are negated (if you are NOT alive, do NOT know what a horse is, or do NOT know how to ride) then this argument falls apart. That is why necessary assumptions are REQUIRED for an argument, but don't necessarily support the validity of the argument.
Hope this helps!
I have the same hesitancy/confusion with AC (C). I've also come to realize that a lot fo these earlier questions (like this one from 1997) are very hard to read and correctly identify because of the slippery language construction.
Yes, hardly unprofessional = NOT unprofessional, which is what the coach is saying in defense to the critics claims that they ARE unprofessional.
The sentence structure is hard on this one. Like JY said, the "as our critics have claimed" makes much more sense reworded before the sentence that starts with "but" and would look something like "We have been criticized for being too enthusiastic AND for being unprofessional. But we are not unprofessional because..."
Hope this helps clear things up!
I definitely have a harder time with the Flaw ACs that require level of assumption or extrapolation to figure them as the right choice. I think the Weaken approach can be right for some and a SA mindset might be helpful for others, since we need to find the spot where in a SA we would "fill in the hole" and, in this case, is our flaw.
I would think this falls most closely to "Confusing probability for certainty."
Most is not equal to all ( aka: not always does NOT mean never).
I see the confusion. I believe the support you are looking for is in line 35-37: "However, the Harris sparrow's age-related plumage differences do not signal the status of individual birds within an age-class, and thus cannot properly be included under the term "status signaling."