A couple things would have to be assumed to be true in order to falsely suppose that (B) is true. Those are that we’d need to assume both that Pulham’s actual number of night students is more than the number of night students in Westerville, while holding true that the total number of students in Westerville is a multiple of 100.

To make (B) true (falsely), we would need to assume Westerville has a population of a multiple of 100, since 29% relies on the prime 29, and since we are working with individual people. Both of these imply that the result of guessing for the population in W cannot be a fraction, so we need to assume W = multiple of 100, which we aren’t given.

At the same time, we are also required to assume that Pulham has more night students than Westerville, in order to incorrectly count B as being necessarily true.

Since we don’t know the populations, we can’t assume these true. It’s another way of thinking about what it would mean for (B) to be true when we aren’t given any of this information.

Excretion comes from caffeine consumption, but if we don't have enough excretion in the first place, then the cause isn't the removal of calcium due to caffeine. It is the lack of presence of calcium to begin with.

"We have learned that there are many more people who are self-employed than we knew about before, given the new census results. Therefore, reports must be wrong that the nation is losing jobs due to technological advancements."

Kevin's and JY's explanations state about AC (A) that it means that the stimulus is confusing kinds of animals with instances. But I read A as saying you are confusing a category with token instances. So (A) is saying you are confusing the categories of something with the token instances. I'm pretty sure that means that you are confusing the category 'amphibian' for its tokens, like 'frog' 'salamander', etc. Not that you are confusing types of amphibians with species within that type (e.g. frogs confused with instances of frogs, like ‘tree frogs’, ‘pond frogs’ while at the same time, salamanders are being confused with newts and red-back salamanders, and so on)— because that would make no sense with the stimulus. (A) would map onto the stimulus, in its most charitable light, even though its false, if the kind ‘amphibian’ is being confused with types of amphibians, like salamander, frog, etc. They aren't moving from granular to more granular: that is, types of a larger category (amphibians) to a conclusion about varieties of the varieties of that category in the stimulus, when considering how (A) would map onto the stimulus. I see that A is false but, the most reasonable reading of (A), as I see it, is that it would be moving from kind: amphibian to tokens: frogs, caecilians. 

Even though (A) has the plurality indicator with the word “kinds” I think that means ‘natural kinds’ —as in types of animals— rather than referring to the multiplicity of types under a single kind. We are only given two categories in the stimulus, natural kind: amphibian, and then tokens: species, so I think the explanations of A (and why it’s wrong) involve a slight misreading of how it could map onto the stimulus.

Thank you for doing this! My question is how are applicants evaluated with somewhat related graduate work (related in the sense of similar skills used; for example logical reasoning)?

@PowerUp_Tutoring "the source" ≠ "mother"

Hello there, I realize that this post is from a bit ago, but just wanted to mention I am open to joining if this is still on going. Thank you!

Some commenters have mentioned that 'many' can be read as 'some'. The case in which that is not true is if anyone were to read 'many' as 'at least one,' when there only was one thing or event being referred to. So 'many' can imply 'some' but logically it means 'more than one,' rather than 'at least one'.

Maybe on JY's explanation for C, the whole restaurant industry could be the thing that the L, J, and M on their own wouldn't like (for the 2nd interpretation flaw).

@LSATgoat it says 'minor' -- how can that contribute to great differences?

 In a way, the stimulus is also about recognizing the comparative relativity of a quality that people have (happiness). Where the argument goes wrong concerns how the conclusion should not make a generalization that goes beyond the 'scope' of the fact that this happiness quality is relative. 

Sure, there was a different causal factor, but that factor was the assumption that pet owners have this predisposition to be less happy. So really, it seems we are recognizing these generalizations about claims regarding qualities that can be relative in the populations being referred to. (E.g. the pet-owners are more happy “relative” to their baseline, and pet-free folks are happier than them.)

(E) is tricky because it is saying Danto Foods would cover up their own negative reports if there was evidence that their own food was unhealthy. It seems to imply that Danto is specifically biased against Ocksenfry. It leaves open that, if there were evidence against Danto, in such a case, Danto wouldn't publish it. That is, (E) says that Danto would not publish their own negative nutritional facts.

If it is presumed that Danto could be honestly publishing reports against their corporate rival about their non-nutritious food, even from their PR department, then (E) looks more plausible.

The conclusion is far too strong for the premises, but I thought the author's mistake was that Danto could, in fact, be publishing mostly true information, and so, there was a tacit assumption that Danto won't publish the same negative facts about themselves.

Did I go wrong assuming the premises were false, or read too much into the stimulus? Maybe I didn't read (A) closely enough.

I'm interested too...

This is so motivating!