I think C is wrong because it doesn't get to the main misinterpretation of the scientists' argument. It wouldn't make sense for them to make this conclusion about TE because how would they know if its the drug making the effect or the placebo, which is also supposed to be making the same effect. The way they would know that it is the drug itself is if there are known side effects for the drug; the placebo would not produce these side-effects since placebos tend to replicate the therapeutic effects rather than the side-effects.

So to say that the scientists are concluding the outcome would mean that the scientists are talking about the therapeutic effects. Maybe McKinsey also thinks that the scientists think the placebo would produce no effects, but the interpretation that he is directly calling out is this contrast between side effects and therapeutic effects and remember you have to pick the best answer choice even if one is slightly similar and may be in the domain of things that the speaker is considering.

#help for b - if there were a bunch of documents that were destroyed doesn't that mean there are more out there than we have now

For B - how do we know whether to take "traffic laws applying" as laws that are currently applied vs laws that will be applied; "laws applying" seems to indicate either interpretation could be okay.

How come C, the fact that they switched effects on the test subjects would not affect the validity of the data?

My explanation: The right answer choice is E. Making more types of lamps but that doesn’t explain why the quantity of lamps has distributed toward those from the M culture; Maybe they were making a million different lamp types but the other one were making billion of the same type, you’d expect to find more of the other one.

I think A would have been correct if it said something like "the older you are, the more wrinkles you have. Henrietta is older than her daughter, so she has more wrinkles than her daughter."

It is such a subtle difference, but I think the stimulus is saying x is correlated with this property whereas A is comparing a person across time and is not necessarily assigning it a property. You could argue that age is a property of H, but I think since you're looking for the best answer choice, D gives a clearer comparison.

How can we conflate educational need with need? Seems like they could disagree that the main need is educational need vs. need for workplace preparedness

I think another point that strengthens D is that it gets to "over the years" - the other issues described in the other answer choices could be happening in the past decade as well. Only D gets to why the trend has emerged in the past decade.

What is the basic flaw type?

my explanation: It says the percentage of fish they got kept growing but after a certain point the weight decreased or was unchanged. This means less fish was available bc they’re still taking as much as they can proportionally but there's less of it for them to take, hence the amount in weight has stagnated or decreased.

It took me so long to understand this primarily because of how convoluted this question is. Here's my paraphrase after I understood:

Context: A legit study found that it gets cloudier on weekends than weekdays, following a 7 day cycle in industrialized cities

C: This means that human activity caused this pattern

P: Why? There are no other 7 day cycles that are natural that could have caused it

ASSUMPTION: if it were a natural cause, then it has to be a 7 day cycle

The loophole: what if the cause was natural but a 2 day cycle or 5 or 6? Why does it have to be specifically 7 day cycle to bring about the observed weather pattern

What E says "if a weather pattern with a natural cause has a 7 day cycle, then that cause has a 7 day cycle" breaking it down -- if it is following a 7 day cycle and its because of a natural reason, then that reason also follows a 7 day cycle.

Its important that it is specifying the context of a natural cause because the premise rules out a natural cause on the grounds that 7 day cycles w natural causes are too weak to bring this pattern so we have to prove that natural causes of other lengths can't cause this pattern, which would lead to the conclusion that human activity is the reason.

I originally thought too about JY's explanation of why C could be correct if all the highly motivated people were in B then C would be correct but I don't think that's the case.

It's not saying the group exercised 1 hour more than they did before, it's saying the group reported exercising 1 hour more than the ppl in the other. So you couldn't weaken the study by saying group 1 just had a small baseline and so the difference change is drastic and they're still doing less than B beause it's saying they're doing more than the other group.

I.E.

G1 Initial (0)

G2 Initial (5)

After watching

G1: 10

G2 (5)

So you have to go with the explanation that they were probably lying not that the explanation of study is weak due to different start points #feedback

I'm confused by 18 because it says in the beginning of the text that traditional theories, which is Jackson's, tried to get debted people to pay "set percentage of amount owed." this seems to imply that the more you owe, the more you're paid which aligns with B? why is this incorrect #help

For answer choice B, the reason I chose it was because I interpreted it as "the lack of evidence something has increased" would be because it hasn't gone up from where it began then we have to assume it has gone down, which is kind of the flaw in that we don't know that it went up or down from whatever beginning start point it was so they're concluding its gone down. Any tips on how to parse through their wording?

I'd like to join!

Hypothetically, if it were true that field inspectors were just as likely (50/50) to chose defective as not defective, then would that mean the sample is under-representative of the flaw rate if the inspectors only found 50 percent flaw rate?

I think this is an example of a problem where diagramming isn't necessarily helpful. I think I was trying to derive a formal conclusion from the diagram I did which caught me to get caught up and miss what I would've probably gotten right if I had approached it without trying to force the formal logic.

How come this isn't a nested conditional? And if it is, how would you go about solving this. How do we know when to use the nested conditional and when to do it normal?