P1 Inhaling lavender tends to reduce stress

P2. Intense stress---> Impair immune system ---->susceptible to Illness

Concl - Those who regularly inhale lavender -------> Incidence of illness reduced

Assumption : people inhaling the lavender are under intense stress. B says it right.

A is irrelevant.

C some people who use lavender to reduce stress are no more susceptible to illness. So what if they are more susceptible to illness? Negation of it does not wreck this argument.

D Maybe it does primarily by reducing stress and giving a nice feeling so what ? Does not wreck the argument. It does it by reducing stress primarily or not primary its still a factor.

Confused between B and D

I didnt like B because the second half says many people will not chose to adopt it. But still its the right. Many or some or atleast one person would be all okay if it was there.

D is so annoying. Argument is not overlooking this possibility, its precisely considering this possibility and that is why it is wrong.

OPA - critics need to be value neutral so that reader make their own judgements

Author - But Literary citicism (LC) cannot be complete value neutral (So maybe literary criticism can be 90 % value neutal only)

Based on this, author concludes that OPA are mistaken about the goal for LC

If you see, author is talking only in last two lines. he gave us a premise and based on that he made a conclusion. All we have to do is P--->C

B is the most closer, though 2nd part is littly iffy but its still best suitable answer.

I love this question.

I was close. Stuck bw C and D. Sometimes I wish my intuition could have been better but like the idea of mapping arguments.

Ist sentence A---> B

------------

2nd sentence C------->/A or A----- >/C

Assumption B----->/C

Here It took me an explanation to understand. An individual who believe he cannot affect the society is same as believing that vast majority of nature affects the society.

Dumb mee.........

Conclusion : we will not be able to determine presence of sentient beings unless sentient beings are as intelligent as us.

Why is Author saying this that we cant detect?

P1 its because, We cannot send aircrafts outside our solar system

P2 Sentient beings outside of planet has to be as intelligent as us to communicate with us.

Based on this, either we send an aircraft or they contact us. Buy why ? Maybe there is some other way we can detect this for instance sending satellites or something.

Therefore to conclude what author is concluding we have to assume that there is nothing else that can detect their presence, That is either we send the aircraft or they contact us.

D captures this well.

Premises :

New course Approved -----> Proposal recvd by dean or Committee

negation Proposal not received by dean and committee ---- > course not approved

Facts -

1) Dean has received one new course proposal

2) all new course proposal comm received -----> Upper level courses

About next year :

All upper level courses ----> Have prerequisites.

I was confused why A is wrong but now I got it.

A- I find this tricky. If there are no new upper level courses next year ----> No new course have prerequisites.

If there are no new upper level course okay we eliminate the upper level courses that was received by committee.

But what about the new course proposal received by dean? Is it for an upper level course or lower level course?

Well if its for upper level course then we can totally infer that no new courses have prerequisites since none of the new courses next wear will be upper level.

But what if the proposal received by dean is for a lower level course. Argument states that all Upper level courses must have prerequisites but we don't now if lower level courses will have prerequisites or not so we cannot conclude based on the premises that there will be no prerequisite for a new course next year.

This was subtle for me. We are assuming something in this argument.

Psychologists say that children with 9 month study programs forget things during summ break , this is OPA statement. Based on this some other group of people that is educators suggest 12 month study program.

Author argues based on psychologists research that 12 month are preferred over 9 month.

Here, psychologists only talk about only 9 month program, author assumes since 9 month programs maes students forgetful 12 months will not make them forgetful but what is 12 months also makes them forgetful.

Author has taken forgetfulness as an effect for 9 month study but it neglects that maybe 12 month study also results in forgetfulness.

B and E are tricky answer choices however this is a classic sufficient neccissity confusion type question.

Premises :

Children under 6 (A) ------> Selfish and Egoistical

Children between 6-9 (B)-----> Understand Pets are independent creatures

-------------------------------------------------------------

Conc : Children under 6 (A) --------> Allow no to have Pets

Or if we negate this conc we get : pets allowed ----> Children who are 6 or above (B)

Whats the assumption ?

1) Selfish and Egoistical ------> allow not to have pets...No answer choice given for this.

2) pets allowed ----->Understand Pets are independent creatures. Hence E is correct. B on the other hand is opposite of this.

This is a hard question. But as much as I am familiar with principle questions they always somewhere restate the conclusion.

Here conclusion is - All committments should be seen as morally neutral.

Why is this the conclusion ? It is because commtting to some thing can be good or bad. Committing to somethinf such as stealing cannot certainly be deservable of praise.

So in answer choices what I mostly do in principle question is look for the conclusion statement which is all committments should be morally neutral. 2 answer choices does this C and E.

I eliminated C because its talking about one committment and when that committment only can be morally neutral and E suits better with mentioning all committments.

P1. M Exc ach ---> overcoming inc to do the wrong thing.

-----------------

Morally Virt ------- > M exc ach

Further inference :

Morally Virt ----- > M exc ---> achovercoming inc to do the wrong thing.

A - is trap because it tricks you in making an assumption. A morally virtuous person is incapable of doing the wrong thing. You cannot assume overcoming inclicnations to do something wrong and incapable of doin something wrong is the same.

Our country need as much as capital. So stop foreign investors from withdrawing investments.

A doesn't do anything. Its not affecting the conclusion if we should make it more difficult for investors to withdraw their funds.

B Weakens it. Key is we need more and more capital and if we adopt the laws to make it difficult for investors from withdrawing capital it will discourage them and will not invest in first place resulting in no additional capital and no economy sustaining.

C is not weakening this. So what historically this was the case. Is it still the case ? we dont know. Are we in same economy situation we were in 5 years ago ?

D other countries doing and failing at this cannot tell if this will happen in our economy. You cannot compare India and U.S to have same effect from law policies.

E 2 years we did this but should we do it now or not ? Neither weakens or strengthens it. Merely reports a fact which is not helping in anyway.

For C, being an economics student. It just says unemployment rate is a Key factor. What does it mean ? High employment rate or low unemployment rate. It doesn't specify so I didnt chose it.

This was hard for me so better set it in my brain I am gonna make an analogous argument.

Traditionally, toddlers raised in play schools are held in boring environement and dealt with routine activities whereas when raised in an experimental setting they are exposed to visually stimulating environment with varied activities. When they grow up, toddlers in experimental seting are more confident and outgoing than those from traditional setting in trying out new creative activities. Toddlers raised in experimental setting are more likely to be intelligent.

A. Its economy feasible for instructors in play school to expose students in varied routines. This is completely not needed for assumption.

B. The quality of environment when they grow up has little effect on toddlers intelligence level. I am not comfotable with this AC but if anything negating this argument supports that quality has more effect and hence toddlers are more intelligent.

C. Some toddlers raised in traditional setting are not intelligent because they are too shy in trying out new activities. This is important since for conclusion to be true we need atleast one toddler to be too shy from trying out new activities for this to be true. If we negate this then we say there are no toddlers raised in TS that are any less intelligent which wrecks the argument.

D. After growing up toddlers are required to try many different types of activities to become intelligent. Maybe they need to try three activities which they are already doing when subjected to routine activities. Not necessary.

E. I am too tired to try E but it definitely isnt necessary.

I find this question okayish. Its supported based on first four lines.

Wood is preserved for longer years say 500 if we do "A", otherwise wood disintegrates within 10-20 years. Okay.

Then we are told "for this reason" archaeologists cannot find remains of early wheeled vehicles.

Inference time : Since wood was not preserved using method A wheeled vehicles must have disintegrated and that is why archaeologists could not find it. Okay great.

Next premise tells us Arch have find Small ceramics models and since they are less susceptible to disintegration they have been used as evidence.

Now lets see the answer choices.

A is useless, we dont know anything about most of the models and who made them.

B is not supported either maybe none of them were made of wood. Nothing in the premises tell us that few of them must have been made from wood.

C is again useless we dont know what individuals now at that time based on premises. MSS question means an answer choice which can we well supported from premises and nothing in premises tells us about what individuals know or didnt know.

D is comparative it says difficult to find, we dont know what is difficult to find. we know what we can preserve or not. Both SMCM and wheeled vehicles can be difficult ot find.

E is correct answer choice, it is well supported. "For this reason we are unable to find artifacts" which supports that they were made from wood and since we cannot find any because of this reason it well supports more of them were made of wood. If they were made of cremaic then we could have found them but we could not find many remains and we started looking for small Cremaic models to draw evidence for them. I am not completely satisfied with the explanation but it is the MSS.

confused between A and C and picked A. ughh

A is wrong because author is not rejecting anything simply doubting the OPA and he is not doing it solely based on insufficient evidence he is providing an analogue as well for it.

P1 - What happens normally and Introduction of a different phenomenon.

GAT - the process of subduction - when two plates collide and one desolves in the mantle.

Normal - earthquakes occuring in hot zones where subd is a lot.

Phen - Earthquake not occuring in areas where there is lot of subduction

Now i am expecting to understand in next para the reasons for this phenomenon.

P2.

Nature of plates is imp.

What happens in hot zones ? no resistance from mantle, plate moving in opp directions dissolves subducted plate in a shallow angle resulting in earthquakes

What happens in quiet zones ? plates in same direction , leading plate encounters resistance from mantle and dissolves

P3

regions with low level subd may have earthquakes depended on nature.

What nature will have earthquakes ? where plates are in opp direction and subducted plate descends with the mantle.

But the recent ads were sent out to few people to this evidenly. Why ? because the ads were sent out to test the potential to influence popular opinion. Oh that is why it was sent to few people.

The sentence after but is stating a fact. That is by B is incorrect. It is merely reporting what happened but the Why of its happening is the main conclusion. Because "evidently" shows the author pov.

I had hard time understanding this question because I didnt use my imagination. And there is a thin if you are making assumptions.

But basically there is a grassland. Imagine a big ground covered with grass. now there a certain small patches on some parts of grassland. around all these patches we find ST colonies and on the basis of this sci people hypothesize that burrowing activities by ST is responsible for this.

So we need something that strengthen that burrowing activities by ST are responsible for this..

A. says that dying grass plants are damaged only at roots well if roots are from where they are damaged than are chances of hypothesize increase from lets say 50% to 80% because it indeed shows that there has been some burrowing activity.

B is tricky it gives an impression of ruling out an alternate hypothesis. I chose this but we don't need it since we already know this alternate doesn't work on the basis of premises. B would have been supportive if we were talking about some other phen as mentioned by JY. For instance in the desert there is 30% grassland that has died out and sci hypothesize its because of burrowing activities.

E is similar to C provides a reason of sand termites burrowing activity but it does not strengthen that the conc about burrowing activity. We have to make a further assumption of this that okay they are digging these holes to protect themselves but maybe their predator can also get in these holes or maybe they can just hide and dont have to dig these patches. We don't care about the reason we care about if its them who are doing this. E is leading us to make an assumption of why they are doing it but we have to first establish its their activity in the first place.

C is saying there is more water content. Okay so maybe they are doing if to get water. Again we are assuming the WHY of their doing.

D is just irrelevant.

Cookie Cutter Pie question

Essentially they are comparing total lending. So total lending for banks have decreased ? Why total lending decrease ? Because lending to small and medium scale companies have decreased compared to last 5 years. Okay but we don't have to conclude on this basis total lending has decreased. So the argument basically is assuming something about large companies. For this argument to work we have to make sure that either we are not lending to them or if we are it is constant or less than it was 5 years ago.

Note mentioning Financially strong companies is somewhere to confuse us since we are not lending to companies that are not financially strong we can assume that who ever we are lending to is financially strong.

I chose E because I couldn't see that they are comparing two pies. I thought if they are charging more interest rates for small companies maybe that's why lending to these companies has decreased. But we dont have to show why lending to them has decreased. FOCUS IS ON THE PIE GETTING SMALLER.

E is wrong because even if bank charges more interest rates for small medium companies it does not justify the conclusion unless we assume something further.

There are two flaws in the argument-

1) Just because A is sweeter than normal sugar doesn't mean soft drink will A is sweeter than soft drink with normal sugar. Maybe there is only a pinch of A and a lot of sugar in soft drinks.

2) Just because someone regularly drinks soft drink with A does not mean they will develop an extreme taste for sweetness. Maybe A is like stevia and they drink it because of less calories

A- tries to target 2nd flaw but here it doesn't say regularly consume the disliked food.

B- Books and Television are compared. Now next thing we need to do is compare collection of books or television episodes as done in the argument. But here we just end of comparing books and episode of television.

C- targets 1st flaw correctly. Compare A and B then compare the collection of A and B.

D - this is wrong because I read the conclusion wrong otherwise this is a wrong structure of the argument.

E - if it were to be right then it had to show since G has a shorter drive he has a preference towards the extreme shorter drive more.

D is wrong for 2 reasons.

1. some could be just one person

2. what if people who had vitamin C in study group also had vitamin C through other food sources.

This is very tricky.

What does routine non punishment of a violation means ? It means whenever the rule is broken, we are not punishing the offender, we are routinely letting the vilolation happen without punishing anyone. For instance, one of the the society rule is to not brea the traffic lights and whenever someone breaks it we are not punishing the offender - It is routinely going unpunished.

My first time reading the stimulus , I thought routinely unpunished means sometimes we are not punishing the offender but it actually means not let one of the society;s rules get unpunished on regular basis.

But conclusion says- Never let the rules to be broken with impunity. so conclsion is confusing routinely unpunished to sometimes un punished.

Premise 1: We have a new anti theft auto device installed in some cars, whose presence is not detectable so it does not diectly deter thieves but helps in appehending even the most exp ones.

Premise 2 : in cities where only a small % have been using this device have noticed reduction in auto thefts dramatically.

Dilemma ; Why is it the case when only a few people in the city have these device in their cars installed, auto theft has decresed significantly ?

Since the most plausible thing would be small % installed and small % of theft has decreased not a significant number.

A does not help, ofcourse if they are unaware they will be less cautious but how does that help in explaining the dramatic dec ?

B doesnt help even if its below aveage the % of theft is drmaticaaly decreased in cities after applying the autotheft device

C is baiting to make an assumption. Earlier thieves were rarely apprehended. Okay so we know now they are appprehended so what ? Dont try to make an assumption just because they are more often apprehended now they have stooped stealing.

D is irrelevant, cars stolen belongs to people who do not live in the city so what ?

E says in majority of cities most of the car thefts are committed by few very expereinced car theieves. So basically there are only 2-3 people committing these thefts. Well oif they are apprehended then ofcourse they will stop stealing which will result in dramatic decrease.