A is wrong because we needed a direct contrapositive. Expensive and cost as a concern do not tie directly enough. C is wrong because it include or both. D adds too many elements to the argument. E's conclusion is formatted incorrectly. B matches the pattern : a or b, if b then c. we dont want c so A

I missed this question because I did not see the assumption that none would change houses or circumstances to limit that commute. I assumed that if employees lived close to the original location, then they would automatically be further from Oceanview. I now see that I needed to ensure that employees could not take an alternative method to live closer to the new location. By ensuring that they don't get pay raises, they would not be able to afford it which would allow for the conclusion to be true.

I did not catch the assumption that hormones were the cause of stress. This was something that was added which made the error. E is right because just because hormones are there, doesn't mean that the stress relief occurs during crying. A allows the assumption to be true. but it is not the error that actually occurred.

The first step is to identify the assumption. Greg is assuming that you can be responsible and not exaggerate. I had selected A but I understand that this was wrong because even if there are other methods of character analysis, why would it be a problem to have another? That is irrelevant and does not weaken it. The assumption is broken when they say that only irresponsible people think that handwriting analysis shows character.

I wasn't confident about this one because I had to find the conclusion. I was tempted by sufficient necessary but the actual flaw was in the conclusion- part to whole fallacy.

A is wrong because we don't know if they will be able to determine- that would require an assumption. I had not selected B because I thought that I shouldn't equate eating with using. I now realize that eating them is using these plants differently than others who may use them for medicine or not use them for food. C D and E require assumptions.

Competent needed to be in an answer. C is correct because it bridges the two ideas. I should have negated D to check it. Even if it usually is not enough, maybe it goes in the other direction and only 2. The 6 to 10 years is so specific so its not actually necessary.

I fixed this one in the Blind Review. I initially picked C but this is wrong because its irrelevant. E adds more information that would actually resolve it. This was just lack of attention to detail by me.

B would weaken this answer because it shows that hiring engineering degree with little sales experience is already happening. The conclusion is thus just stating what is already happening instead of proposing a way to decide who to hire. We have more of those reps so more of them are the best. E which I selected is wrong because even if some don't have it, the best could still have those qualities.

I fixed this in the Blind Review after initially choosing A. A is wrong because we don't know for sure if the amateur noble prize winners all made significant contributions to science. We don't know anything about the groups. B is wrong because we don't know that all of the Nobel prize winners aren't motivated by it "at all". D is wrong because it says nothing about "overall" so thats an assumption. E is irrelevant and not stated. C is right because if they are motivated by the love of science alone, then many of the significant contributions could be motivated by that.

When I came back to do the BR, I switched my answer. I chose A but I think I got confused and started looking for a MBT instead of MBF. A fits the principle so its wrong. E (my original answer) was correct because its not causing harm to others but they still want to prevent it. C and D largely follow the principle while B is irrelevant.

For resolve questions, its key to actually solve both issues. A is fine that some did not eat the mosquitoes but that would not explain why the numbers actually went up. The same goes for B. D and E were wrong because they did not relate to the problem. Finally, C was right because it addressed the fact that the numbers of mosquitoes were still going up.

I was wrong because I did not select an answer that focused on the central argument. B C and D were far to general while E relates directly to the conclusion. D needed to be ruled out because data without an article was also too general.

This is a temporal flaw. Just because we currently are unable doesn't predict doesn't mean that we always won't be able to predict. C is wrong because its not a sufficiency necessity mistake.

E was correct because those that were tested already had insomnia. It cannot be assumed that all people who are older have the same pineal gland effects unless you tested those without insomnia too. Those people don't just represent old people. D was wrong because if you actually break it down- reversing the cause and effect does not happen.

The gap is the difference between paying attention and being led to have beliefs. So if people know that they are unrepresentative, then it would make sense that they are not misled. I chose d because I had reasoned that people needed the statistical information to have beliefs. This was wrong because even if it was incomprehensible, people might still not be impacted by it.

D was wrong because it discussed all behavior. The argument also did not necessarily say that it could only be two of those options. B is correct because walking could be both instinctive but need to be taught to young bears.

I was thinking that biomarkers were a part of plants and animals. I now realize that they could have been remnants of bacteria. E was wrong because some may have had fossilized remains but that doesn't weaken the conclusion that it could not be deep carbon deposits.

I chose C because I misread E. I was very focused on the lack of correlation between satisfaction and income. When I did blind review, I realized that answer E was correct in its analysis of satisfaction which focused on comparison.

20. B is wrong because the principal cannot be wrong if one of the government's did not work against it. So there would have to be a legitimate totalitarian government to disprove this. C states that directly

#help Can anyone help explain why C is the wrong answer? Is it just because it doesn't fully address either side?

I initially chose A. I now see that you cannot assume the "most" part of it. Maybe a lot of them receive attention- or maybe its just a few. The argument does not say. The same assumption is required of B and D. C does not address the requested aspect. E is correct because it does not apply to either of the conditions for fiction- it's not by a literary agent or requested. It also fails the requested part for nonfiction so it makes sense that it would be by a renowned author.

The flaw here could be described as a possibly misrepresentative sample. Even if those that already switched saved money, that doesn't imply that those that haven't switched will save the same amount. In the future, I will try to eliminate answer choices that do not accurately describe the flaw.

I did not recognize the whole to part flaw. I now see that you cannot make assumptions about each individual group by looking at the full majority. Having not recognized this right away, I should have gone through and eliminated the answers that spoke of a flaw that did not exist.

I chose D but I should have properly negated it. Even if only a small amount of viewers tuned back in, the argument would be valid. It doesn't require most of the viewers to return for the following episodes. On the other hand, if the advertisers also misrepresented the program, then the argument would fall apart.