Even if you changed that, I don't think this would work...

1. The stimulus did not talk about how advance the tech is... So, would this be relevant?

2. The ability to devote such portion misses the point of the argument...

Good luck,

The way you can figure out the right meaning of such word is by reading the previous sentence and reading the sentence on which such word is used. Here is an elaboration (the clues are bolded).

When they were offered the opportunity to purchase the mug, they wouldn't pay more than 5 dollars. However, if they were given such mug, they would sell it for more than 5 dollars.

Overall, you should connect each sentence with one another to see the big picture.

Not necessarily... The author is saying that a lawyer should take into consideration, if he or she knows, the client's guilt when providing the defense. The reason is that lawyers have a duty to the court as well as society.

What you provided is a conditional statement: best defense requires attorneys to believe in their clients

Such conditionality, I strongly think, is not supported by the passage. Moreover, it's a bit too unrealistic (aka extreme) - don't you think? I hope this helps!

Hey dude -

You are confusing my analogy with what you refer to as "logic"... Here, I'll make it more clear for you:

The right answer, A, is saying: that something good (the stingray without parasite is healthier) is in something bad (an ecosystem in which is under environmental stress such as pollution) because the bad (an ecosystem in which is under environmental stress, such as pollution) brought about the good (no parasites of stingrays)…

Answer choice A explains the paradox:

The parasites of stingrays require as hosts shrimps or oysters, which are environmentally vulnerable organism; since we know, from the stimulus that such stingrays are in an ecosystem in which is under environmental stress, we can likely infer that such shrimps or oysters are dying off, and, hence, via the contrapositive, we can explain why there are stingrays without parasites in an ecosystem in which is under environmental stress.

Please let me know what other explanations of mine you think are wrong, so I can check them; who knows, maybe you'll be right about the other ones!

Good luck,

I got this wrong; during blind review, I did the circle diagraming and got it right lol

This one took me two minutes.

A. This seems to S by stating "avoid over-representing"; however, it's also whatever because we have no idea how over-representing academic discipline plays a role in the argument...

B. Okay - thanks for that extra information; who cares about the how the premise came to be...

C. This S... It's pretty much saying that when comparing retired people with a college degree and retired people without a college degree, the former are not that much in favor in reducing government social services.

D. This does the trick; however, it seems to go against the conclusion. I guess this is okay since the conclusion didn't have much going for it... This similar to a type of question in some PT:

X is correlated with Y; so, if X, then Y.

The right answer was something like this: the argument neglected to consider that you can have X without having Y.

E. What am I suppose to do with this? Strong opinions for what?

A. This provides an alternative hypothesis: they are getting struck by cars when crossing streets in crosswalks more often than they are struck when crossing outside of crosswalks because there are an overwhelming majority of pedestrians crossing streets in crosswalks

B. Okay? Thanks for this extra information; it's unnecessary. It does nothing to weaken the argument.

C. This strengthens

D. I picked this and then quickly changed it to A. We are trying to undermine the argument which is an explanation to the situation. This answer choice is attractive because it seems to suggest that the explanation in the argument may not be true because drivers are most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks. However, this answer choice could or even is consistent with the argument. Moreover, it doesn't weaken the explanation.

E. Similar to C

I had the principle down but the idea of preventing being wrong took me for a spin... I had two options: either spend time thinking about it logically or just wing it (via common sense). I did the second one and got it right within a minute and 20 seconds.

I saw this type of flaw before; I thought this was very challenging.

Argument:

Premises:

Out of a set of cats (let's say there are 100 cats in the world), only 47 have UD.

Out of a set of dogs (let's say there are 100 cats in the world), only 38 have UD.

Conclusion:

People who hold a university degree are more likely to live in a household with a cat than with a dog.

Analysis: does this really follow? I guess not; it's a flaw question. How would it follow? Well, we have to assume that the set for both cats and dogs are the same, no? As I have it above, we have a set of 100 for each animal. If that's the case, then we can conclude that if you have a university degree, then yes you are more likely to live in a household with a cat (47) than with a dog (38).

What if the set is smaller for cats? Let's say 50, which means that 38 percent of 50 is 19. If that's the case, then we can conclude the arguments conclusion? Nope, since a household with a cat (19) is less than a household with a dog (38). Therefore, we can conclude that people who hold a university degree are more likely to live in a household with a dog than with a cat.

A. Mmm... So there are people who have a cat and a dog. So what? Is such people within the group that have university degree or not?

B. Mmm... Does it have assume this? Yes! Imagine there are significantly more households with a dog... 38 percent might be smaller than 47 percent, but in terms of number (which is needed to figure the likelihood of whether a household with a cat is more likely to hold a university degree than a household with a dog), 38 percent would have a bigger number if the size of the set is significantly bigger.

C. Sure... How is this the flaw? The first objection is that "household" is too general. We are concerned, if anything, with households that have either a dog or a cat.

D. lol

E. lol

P1 - LR: Neuroimaging in psychology depends on a "premise"

P2 - LR: Uttal takes issue with the premise

P3 - LR: Push-back: Scans do reveal well defined areas

P4 - LR: Objection to P3: False impressions

MP: Neuroimaging in psychology is no bueno because there is some basic conceptual problems about using brain scans as pictures of mental activities.

P1 - LR: Transparency in stock market

P2 - LR: Inside trading is unfair

P3 - LR: Consequences of Inside trading

MP: Inside trading is not good because it goes against the transparency of the stock market and causes a loss of investor confidence, which could destroy the stock market

P1 - LR: Inside trading law

P2 - LR: Author's Position: we "inside trade" every time

P3 - LR: How the stock market works

P4 - LR: How inside trading helps the sock market

P5 - LR: Inside non-trading

HR: Inside non trading is when you have knowledge (inside trading) but don't use it. Suggesting from P4, such actions does not help ensure that stock prices reflect a more accurate assessment of all the relevant facts, which is goof for everyone in the stock market. The author ironically says: no one, who does inside non-trading, would lock that person up for doing such a "crime"

[after watching JY's, I guess may have messed up my interpretation of P5]

MP: Inside trading shouldn't be a crime: it helps the stock market

P1 - LR: Three catalyst of the GM

P2 - LR: Paradox: why migration continued

P3 - LR: Hypothesis: migration develops momentum lowering cost and difficulty

P4 - LR: Support for P3: various ways to combat the cost and difficulty

MP: The reason the Great Migration continued in subsequent decades is that migration develops momentum: the more people migrate, the easier it becomes, monetarily as well, for others to do the same

P1 - LR: Rawls doesn't like utilitarianism

P2 - LR: Rawl's fair procedure

P3 - LR: Elaboration by analogy

P4 - LR: Rawl's argument

P5 - LR: Author's take: mild criticism

MP - Despite having some undesirable redistributionist idea, Rawl's theory of justice arises from a fair procedure

Took me a little less than two minutes. I got this via POE.

Argument

Premise:

1. Teenagers tend to wake up at 8AM. Anything earlier, they are sleepy. Sleepiness can impair driving.

2. There is this phenomenon: In G's high school, the school time was changed to 8:30 AM and the overall number of car accidents involving teenage drivers in G declined

Conclusion: If the school day began later than 8 AM, car accidents involving teenagers driving to school could be reduced

Analysis: It seems like a good argument. How can I make it better?

I guess we can take this phenomenon and make it stronger... What if I tell you that another factor, which occurred at the same moment the school changed its time to 8:30 AM, caused the overall decline in the number of car accidents?

A. Young children? Who cares about them... When teenagers start releasing melatonin? I don't what to do with this...

B. Okay... Thanks for that extra information? I don't see how I could use this information about who was more late to support the argument

C. Spend more time driving? Similar to B.

D. Many? It's a little weak. Also, so what if many accidents occurred in the evening. How could this make the argument stronger?

E. I guess this strengthens: it makes the conclusion/hypothesis stronger.

1. the conclusion/hypothesis explains how in G there was a decline as compared to regions surrounding G. The small issue is assuming that those regions did not implement the conclusion/hypothesis

2. It takes away an alternative cause: there was an overall decline in car accidents for teenagers through the nation

P: Because bone flutes during UP are the earliest evidence for music, it is likely that music started in UP

G: Using bones for instruments is rare and stronger than wood, which is commonly used for musical instruments

G responds to P by bringing a consideration that weakens P's argument.

A. I guess... The LSAC writers are a creative breed...

B. G is not saying that P's premise is wrong.

C. There is no type of example in neither of their arguments

D. Similar to C: there is no analogy being used

E. G doesn't use P's evidence; instead, G brings some new considerations. Moreover, G doesn't draw a conclusion lol

Argument

P: He opposes higher taxes and many would agree that such position will make a better leader than someone who supports higher taxes

C: T is the best person to lead this nation

Analysis: what a horrible argument lol

A. Ok - this could be it. This is like saying that having brown eyes is not a factor contributing to good leadership. In short, it makes the idea of such position irrelevant to the conclusion of whether T is the best person to lead this nation. This weakens.

B. Mmm... This could strengthen but it doesn't. Does it weaken? No, not really. There could still be something about opposing higher taxes that could help T be the best person to lead this nation.

When comparing it to A, A wins.

C. Okay - how would does opinions affect his ability to lead this nation?

D. Cool, but we have a dude that opposes such taxes... Not helpful.

E. Similar to D.

A. L doesn't touch on experiencing emotions

B. Sarah doesn't touch on resolving problems

C. Unclear. L might say yes but her prescription was to restrict children's access to these movies. This answer choice goes above and beyond.

D. Yeah... This is an assumption underlying the two speakers.

E. No idea... Sarah didn't talk about children

Took me two minutes. This was tough

Argument

Premise: There is X based on flight reports required of pilots and there is Y based on partial review of air traffic control tapes

Conclusion: X is more reliable than Y

Analysis: It's a flaw, so how can we say not really to the conclusion: that X is equally reliable or less reliable than Y? What's the issue with Y? It has a "partial review". What could the issue be with X? Well, it is done by pilots, some of whom could have messed up the landing and so decide not to be objective...

A. This presumption is unwarranted; it misses the point of the argument

B. Bingo. The argument did ignore that X could be bias...

C. Questions the integrity of those... Nope, this is a different error

D. Is this necessary? Nope. The argument does't need the tapes to be inaccurate... They are already based "on partial review," which is all the argument needs to make its point.

E. The argument concludes that it must be inaccurate? Really? I thought the argument concluded that it must be unreliable

A. OK - this helps a little by implying that the reason the moose population did not stop growing is because the wolves prevented other predators from coming into the area...

There are two issues:

1. It avoids the paradox: we are confronted with a paradox about how come wolves didn't stop the moose population from increasing. This answer choices doesn't explain that.

2. You have to assume that just because wolves discourages other predators that such discouragement actually works and if it works it works for most if not all of the predators that would be capable to stop the moose population from increasing.

After watching JY: I made the unsupported assumption that predators referred to moose predators. Still, I was able to eliminate this for the reasons stated above.

B. Please explain lol

C. Interesting... So the wolves do help but they target the weakened moose that has diseases, and those diseases can spread to other moose. This answer choice suggests that by killing such moose, the wolves are having a net zero effect in stopping the moose from increasing in number.

D. Who cares...

E. Okay... This makes the paradox more weird

A. This weakens...

It's like you making a hypothesis about a recent phenomenon by saying that X caused it, and someone else comes in and says nah: X has always been there...

B. This weakens...

This is providing the effect without the cause

C. Okay... Cool? Thanks for that extra information; what am I supposed to do with it?

D. Aha! This does it. This answer makes the hypothesis more likely by providing a time relationship as well as providing an assumption the argument made:

1. The assumption: the hospital staff knew that they were being monitored... If they didn't then how would they be "more careful"

2. In causation territory, time relationship matters. You can't really say X caused Y when Y happens before X lol

E. This is irrelevant; the argument doesn't care about the consequences that follow

PX: How come such species of large abalones developed only after otters, which kill abalones, began to dominate the waters?

A. This makes the paradox more confusing: not only did the otters kill them but also took away their resources

B. Who cares... Thanks for that extra useless information

C. I like this; although, it feels that it needs an assumption: by otters doing this, it greatly offsets otters preying on abalones...

D. Okay... Misses the paradox.

E. Cool... Similar to B.

I spent an extra 30 seconds on this question.

Argument

Background: There is this moth that eats NGC, which laces its body with a toxin that helps them avoid predators.

P: Since NGC is now facing extinction

C: The moth is also in danger of extinction

Analysis: Really? What if there is another way to get this toxin?

A. Bingo.

B. Mmm... This is tricky because it feels like the negation would wreck the argument. It feels like a defender NA.

What if they do have the speed or agility to escape from some of its potential predators? Would this weaken the argument? Perhaps... However, you have to assume that just because you can do X, you use X. Also, this just applies to some predators, what about the others? You have to assume that the others are not playing some role in the extinction of the moth...

C. Who cares if they cannot do it via just appearance

D. Who cares how they locate such grass

E. Who cares...

This took me two minutes; I had to skip and come back... I wasn't in my zone.

Argument

Because the our net price for each X is the same but our market share for X dropped from 50% to 25%, we must be making, in net income, half of what we did before.

The issue: don't miss percentages with numbers

You see, your market share can drop but the whole income can increase... Let's say you sold 50 Xs out of 100 total Xs in the market. Your market share is 50% percent. This year, your market share is 25%. Does that mean you sold less? No. This could be the case: you sold 1000 Xs out of 4000 Xs.

A. Bingo.

B. Sure but who cares? The manufacturers are not part of our argument

C. Sure, but there is no need to talk about other products

D. No it doesn't...

E. Okay... So what?

P1

Low Reso: EJS Attempt in Reviving Lamarckism (L): he claims to have found evidence in the immune system (IS)

P2

Low Reso: Immune System: its cells contain genes that mutate with unusual frequency

P3

Low Reso: Issue #1 with EJS Attempt: Could the new DNA be carried to the reproductive genes? EJS says yes, via a virus.

P4

Low Reso: Issue #2 with EJS Attempt: Does it occur? EJS' evidence is not great and some other biologist are not swayed

MP

EJS attempts in reviving Lamarckism by claiming to have found evidence for a Lamarckism mechanism in the immune system; however, he relies on speculative data...