For me a flow indicator was the phrase "as a result" Meaning, an allocation of goods to people with the most money, as opposed to those in need is supported by the fact that some people cannot pay as much as others.

I hope this helps.

WOW! This is great.

I am excited to help :)

Also great review from last week!

I wanted to note that upon further review I discovered that Question #19 of Section 2 to is an example of De Morgans Law. Hopefully my logic is sound lol.

Sale TF & /Exotic Birds --> Gerbils --> /Independent

From this we can draw the valid conclusion that:

Sale TF & /Exotic Birds --> /Independent

to take the contrapositive of this, we would just apply the De Morgans law ( the negation of an and statement makes it an or statement)

Thus, we can draw the conclusion that:

Independent --> /Gerbils --> /Sale Tf or Sale Exotic Birds

(D) Not ( Independent --> Sale TF & /Exotic Birds)

apply the negation: Independent --> /Sale TF or Sale Exotic Birds

Can You add me on the message as well?

Can't wait !

I am in! Thanks for hosting!!

@euriehwang943 Haha! I totally agree. This group has been so helpful :smiley:

I totally agree, that game was evil smh.

@euriehwang943 Great! Sounds good.

Hello are we still doing the BR? I noticed there are no questions listed on the spreadsheet.

P: I use only organic pesticides, tan there is no evidence that they harm either people or domestic animals. Furthermore, I am careful to avoid spraying on my neighbors land.

C: My neighbor claims that my pesticides are spreading onto her farm in runoff water, but she is wrong

Argument analysis: I think I missed this question do to lazy reading. I erroneously thought the author addressed the neighbors concerns with the statement about being careful. However, being careful to spray does not have anything to do with contamination through "runoff water". This is why answer Choice B (the answer I picked under timed conditions) is incorrect and answer choice C is correct. Neither of the two premises are relevant to the issue at hand.

Question 14 illustrates the importance of sticking to the scope of what is asked. As soon as I saw "... a story emerges" I picked answer choice D. However, this is not even the line we are supposed to be referencing. As the specified lines state, "real lives do not easily arrange themselves as stories" Hence, there is an "amorphous nature" as answer choice B notes. Moreover, "seemingly featureless background" is another textual clue.

For Question number 2 I erroneously picked answer choice D. But, this is not the "main point" as to why the author mentioned this, the author is not trying to emphasize the "range o diversity" of his collection. Right below the expert the author states that "I gathered much of the background material for my study of Tucker's life though research ..." Moreover, the second paragraph supports the fact that the author used this information as a "source" as stated in answer choice A.

P: That asteroid is not large enough for the requisite amount of dust to have been produced.

P: Besides, the extinction of dinosaur species took many years, not just one or two

C: So, the extinctions must have been due not to an asteroid impact on earth but to some other cause

Argument analysis: I think it was easier to per-phrase with this question because there is a major assumption made. Selena only states "asteroid impact" she does not specify how many asteroids nor does Yet, Trent assumes that it was one. This is why answer choice (E) must be correct. If not then "asteroids" could have produced the requisite dust as opposed to some other causation.

(A) Why does this have to be the case for all asteroids? There just needs to be at least , not all to occur on land

(B) Okay--even if we negate this and say dinosaurs in the neighborhood would not have survived does this amount to an extinction of all dinosaurs? We cannot assume so.

(C)Like answer choice A, this does not have to be true. We don't need "any" event

(D) Not something that is needed to be true, this is getting away from the argument.

This question was tricky for me. Under timed conditions I picked answer choice A, however on BR I switched to C. I think I did not clearly understand the structure of the argument, and what was actually being implied.

However, now I see that, what makes cereal edema especially dangerous is the fact that it could be confused with ordinary mountain sickness, yet, As answer choice A notates, if the treatment is the same, then is does not matter that the the two illnesses resemble one another, since a person who may be assumed to have only mountain sickness will be treated for cereal edema as well. Hence, Answer choice A blocks this case, adding warrant to the danger of cerebral edema at high altitudes.

I know see that answer choice (C) does nothing for the argument. Even if we negate this answer choice and say ordinary mountain sickness does involve disruption of blood to the brain, it still could hold that cerebral edema is especially dangerous at high altitudes if one is diagnosed with mountain sickness as opposed to cereal edema

I got question 25 wrong because I misread D. I thought it was implying that each line segment composing the Koch Curve is of equal length, which cannot be true. I still believe the wording of this answer choice leads us to believe that it is referring to all lines as opposed to the separate segments. However, when we understand this answer choice in realms of each separate segment being equal length, then this is something that is true.

Question 9: Detail Question

Under timed conditions I picked answer choice C, but I believe that is mostly because I cultivated my own understanding of what "reductionism" meant. However, within the context of the passage, the author only refers to reductionism in reference to how humanists view scientist. Answer choice B is clearly supported and I think I overlooked the statement that the "separation is primarily a result of the philosophical foundations of both science and humanities"

Question 5 was tricky for me especially answer choice (A) but the "every three year" rule refers to subsequent rulings. The beginning of paragraph three is our reference point where it states "the case established a formidable precedent for opening up the public to the world of broadcasting" which is what answer choice (E) highlights

(A)

Cal→Kinds of computers→devices for automated reasoning

devices for automated reasoning ←s→/Cal

devices for automated reasoning←s→/Computer

Here we can see how the structure does not match

(B)

E→B→PH

E→B←s→/PH

_

E←s→/PH

Again, the conclusion's structure does not match

(C)

M→C←s→/S

M→S

_

C←s→/M

We can clearly see the structure does not match here starting with the some statement in the premise

(D)

Arch→D→Art

D←s→/Arch

Art←s→/D

Again, the conclusion does not match

(E)

B→T→D

/B←s→T→D

D←s→/B

Great! This is exactly what we need

Argument Flaw

Context: The failure of bicyclists to obey traffic regulations is a casual factor in more than one quarter of the traffic accidents involving bicyclists

P: Since, inadequate bicycle safety equipment is also a factor in more than a quarter of such accidents

C: Bicyclists are at least partially responsible for more than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles

Assumption: With this argument, the author assumes that the 2 sets do not overlap.

(C) Answer choice C, highlights this, the author fails to consider that failure to obey traffic regulations and inadequate bicycle safety can contribute to the same singular accident

(A) I picked this answer choice under timed conditions, however, this does not provide an adequate explanation. If we accept this as our hypothesis, how do we account for the other group who produced on average higher quality articles with a zero cash incentive? This answer choice still leaves us puzzled.

P:The Brick Wall Review makes enough money in sales from anthologies to cover the cost of most operating expenses

P: Most poems published in your magazine are very similar to those published in the Brick Wall Review

C: So, if your magazine also published an anthology of poems first printed in your magazine, you could also depend less on donations

(A) So, we already know that the Brick Wall Review does not rely on donations to cover a majority of operating expenses, but the fact the other magazine under question does not seems to help the argument as opposed to weakening it because it provides us with another consideration as to why the magazine under discussion could rely less on donations

(B) Okay--this provides a point of difference between the magazines, but it does not weaken the argument, although it attempts to attack the premise we still know that most poems published in the magazine under discussion are similar to those of the Brick Wall

(C) This answer choice is wrong on 2 accounts:

1) We do not know if the Brick Wall Magazine does this or not

2) Even is this is a point of dissimilarity it seems to strengthen the argument more than it weakens it, since the other magazine would have another source of funds to pay towards expenses allowing for less dependence on donations

(D) This answer choice looked attractive to me and I picked it under timed conditions, but upon further analysis I understand why it is wrong. We already know that the Brick Wall Review makes enough money in sales form anthologies to cover MOST operating expenses, so the fact that a small portion of donations is used to cover the remaining amount of operating expenses does not matter. The Brick Wall Review is still able to rely less on donations, which would still allow the other magazine to do so

(E) This provides a point of dissimilarity between the two magazines being analogized. Which is the KEY way to weaken an argument by analogy. Moreover, it highlights the fact that the Brick Wall Magazine does not simply reprint poems from the original issue. What if the other magazine's anthology does not include "famous poets" can one still say that they would generate enough funds to cover most operating expenses?

Context: political opinion and analysis outside the mainstream are rarely found on television talk shows

Context:it might be that this state of affairs is a product of the political agenda of television stations themselves

P: because they attempt to capture the largest possible share of television audience for their shows

MP: they air only those shows that will appeal to large numbers of people

C: as a result, political opinions and analyses aired on television talk shows are typically bland and innocuous

(A) why would they need to agree on this? Not relevant

(B) Negation: There are no television viewers who would refuse to watch television talk shows they knew would be controversial or disturbing; if this is the case, then one could not say television talk shows are bland and innocuous as a result of trying to capture the largest audience possible

(C) Negation: it is not the case that each television viewer holds some opinion that is outside the political mainstream, which are not the same for everyone; why does this have to be correct?

(D) This is a comparative statement between television shows versus television talk shows, but why is this necessary for the argument to hold?

(E) Again, not necessary, resemblance in most respects is not required of the argument

Phenomoen: Most people feel they are being confused by the info. from broadcast news

P: This could be the effect of the information's being delivered too quickly or of its being poorly organized

p: Analysis of the information content of a typical broadcast news story shows that news stories are far low in information density than the maximum information density with which most people can cope at any time

Hypo: So, the information in typical broadcast news stories is poorly organized

(A) Negation: it is the number of broadcast news stories which a person is exposed that is the source of feeling confusion; this is a blocking type of necessary assumption, you see that when this statement is negated in wreaks the argument

(B) Negation: poor information in a news story DOES NOT make it impossible to understand the information; difficult does not equate to impossible

(C) Negation: being exposed to more broadcast news stories within a given day would not help a person to better understand the news; okay, this might help but this does not rule out hypo. stated above

(D) Negation: most people cannot cope with a very high information density; why do people need to cope with "very high" information density, the human maximum does not equate to very high

(E) Negation: some people are not being overwhelmed by too much information density; this can still be true, and not destroy the argument, people feeling overwhelmed is not relevant to the argument

On BR it definitely took me a while to distinguish between A and B. Thank you :), writing explanations really helps me to solidify my understanding.

P:Scientists talk about the pursuit of truth, but like most people, they are self interested

Sub-conclusion: Accordingly, the professional activities of most scientists are directed toward personal career enhancement and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth

C: Hence, the activities of the scientific community are largely directed toward enhancing the status of that community as a whole and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth

(A) whole → part; this is in the wrong direction

(B) part →whole; we go from most scientist to the "scientific community" in general

(C) This is in direct opposition of the argument

(D) Not an accurate description of the argument

(E) Different flaw