Feel free to message me! 172 scorer

No, I've never applied the idea of 'only one cause per effect' unless the argument is specifically stating that is the case. Smoking cigarettes is a cause of cancer, but we could clearly see the flaw in an argument that claimed that smoking is the only cause of cancer. Arguments often use situations that happen to include 'one cause per effect', but I wouldn't say this is an absolute rule and is more for the sake of not making arguments extremely complex.

And your use of sufficient in both cases are pretty much the same.

Yes, that would mean that the chairperson consulted them.

Here, consent and consult are different things. To have been consulted is necessary for giving consent. (But giving consent is not necessary for having been consulted. This is why a member could say, "No" and still have been consulted.)

So if we know the other members weren't consulted, then they didn't give their consent. According to A, if they didn't give their consent, then it would not have been permissible to release the report.

For this question, you need to see how each answer fits into the analysis (or principle). D is the only one that doesn't fit into the analysis where accomplishing one goal will help to accomplish another. I don't see how building a new, larger warehouse will help employees plan to expand the old warehouse to create more space. If anything, these goals seem like two mutually exclusive choices in which one choice will preclude the other.

A is irrelevant. The argument is concerned with breeding wild species to become domesticated species. A talks about breeding domesticated species to become wild species. You'd have to make very large, unjustified assumptions to connect these two.

C weakens the argument because it provides evidence that casts doubt on the possibility of the conclusion. The argument states that all animals can be bred for domesticity by selectively breeding animals with tame traits. Answer choice C says that certain animal species do not display tameness. The implication is that we cannot breed for domesticity by selecting for tame traits in certain animal species because those traits don't exist in the first place. Thus, this conflicts directly with the argument's conclusion that all animals can be bred for domesticity by selecting for tame traits.

Hey, Joey. I sent you a message!

I got this one wrong, so I might not be as much of a help here. :(

I probably would've been much more critical of this if this question were #27 as opposed to #7. In any case, if I could approach this question differently, I would've placed more a larger emphasis on the author's view. The author takes a very clear stance on this issue: decreasing crop diversity is a major issue and must be addressed. If you read the first and last sentences of the passage, you'll get a clear sense of this. When I reconsider A now, I definitely see why the author would agree with this. I get a sense that the author would actually resent the geneticists for the work they've done to disrupt crop diversity in favor of maximizing output (strong The Lorax vibes). However, you have to see the 'bigger picture' here and not just within the few sentences in which the highlighted phrase was contained.

For D, which I also chose originally, we have to make an assumption the geneticists' prior focus is now what is guiding their interests in heirloom crop varieties instead of something like an internal moral reckoning. However, I think the larger assumption comes with the fact that heirloom crops "help to maximize specific crop yields". If anything, the last sentence of the first paragraph seems to suggest that heirloom varieties and maximizing land output are opposed to each other.

I think this test is always trying to find new ways to trip people up or disrupt old dogma for answering questions. Hopefully this (and your other author's view question that I answered) can give you a different approach, but perhaps not the only approach, to answering questions like these.

Hello, Jacob. I feel like I'm answering all of your questions lol. Thanks for putting your thought processes at least; it really helps to see how someone thinks about approaching problems to be able to give best advice.

You wrote, "with the reorganization system, the business restructures, in a way that should allow them to pay off more than just their lenders, but other stakeholders as well." I could see how the line in the beginning where reorganizations "establishes a plan for satisfying liabilities while allowing the company the continue operating" would support this. However, this is only a plan, not a guarantee.

Look at the language of answer choice D. The word "ultimately" means this answer implies that in every case, insolvent companies being allowed to reorganize would be a better option for creditors as opposed to forced liquidation. The passage doesn't go so far to make such a confident claim, and I think you reached too far beyond the text here.

For questions like these, it's also important the remember that we're concerned with the author's view, not what is most likely "supported by the passsage". The author's opinion in the last paragraph specifically writes that under Korobkin's view, creditors are "likely to recover less in the event of bankruptcy". There is definitely an overall tone that the author believes Korobkin's view is less beneficial for creditors and would thus disagree with D.

Now let's look at E. This was directly supported by a line in the last paragraph where the author criticizes Korobkin's view. "Under such a regime (Korobkin's view), creditors charge more for credit, a result that has its own adverse economic effects." In essence, it's going to be harder to get a loan to finance a new business under Korobkin's view.

It's helpful to remember we're look for the author's opinion here and any stance that they take on the issue. If I'm asking myself between D and E, which is the author more likely to support, I would definitely choose E.

As a note, RC took me the longest the finally "get". It takes a lot of practice to see the subtly of it. If you're not feeling confident yet, consider postponing until you are as opposed to potentially having a non-ideal score on record.

You have it perfectly. The argument was saying changing relationships is necessary for relieving troubles, as in you cannot do without it. C tells us that changing relationships will be sufficient for relieving troubles, but that's not what the argument focuses on.

D interrupts the argument by saying changing relationships actually isn't necessary for relieving troubles. If D were the case, how could changing relationships be necessary then?

Good work! Logical reasoning flaws like this show up subtly like this all the time, so the more problems you do, the better and more confident you will feel when they do arise.

This was a tricky question. I think you're right on it, though. If C didn't exist, I would've chosen D. Addressing which answer is more reasonable is important here.

But let's also look at why C specifically weakens the argument. An underlying assumption in this argument is that if a medical treatment is non-deceptive, then a medicine administered will directly address a symptom (Accordingly, if a medicine does not directly address a symptom, it is a deceptive medical treatment). Answer choice C attacks this assumption by challenging the idea that non-deceptive treatments need to have medicines that directly address symptoms when they could very well indirectly address them. Answer choice D doesn't attack the reasoning used by the argument, which often makes for a weaker answer.

This is probably more complicated and abstract of an explanation than necessary, but I think it helps to be able to think of the core reasoning of underlying arguments, especially when you get to very difficult weaken questions.

Not currently a subscriber, so I haven't watched JY's video.

I chose C over B because this passage is primarily concerned with addressing Belcher and Hu's research. If you did #20 of this passage, you can see how the first half of the paragraph serves to introduce the purpose and context for why Belcher and Hu's research is being done. The second and third paragraphs further detail their research and don't address the first half of the first paragraph at all. This confirms for me that the emphasis of the passage is on Belcher and Hu's research. 7sage likes to emphasize understanding the relationships between all paragraphs and also the broader point being demonstrated. You need to ask yourself what the relationship between the paragraphs are here.

Answer choice B places Belcher and Hu's research on the periphery, which is not what I'm looking for. Additionally, I would agree with @ here. We don't have any evidence to suggest that decreasing transistor size is necessary for increasing efficiency and speed. Since the passage doesn't go so far to make such a strong claim, I definitely know this isn't the answer.