How about this? Since we have our functioning pre-frontal cortex which helps us to think prudently and plan ahead, we can brave ourselves for unforeseen dangers in the future. But this could backfire on us. What if my providence prevents me from living the moment to the fullest by making me a worrywart? What if those buggy gadflies hover around me to the point of gnawing at my spiritual wellness? What if those worries keep me up at night as I am tossing and turning all night? Though I want to keep them at bay, I cannot do so. In this case, can I call this "the downside of human intelligence"?

#Help

Is there anyone who would vet my rather flimsy thought process? I was very tempted by Choice (A) like all the other students. I opted out of it at the 11th hour thanks to the lightbulb moment. But I cannot stand by that I reached the conclusion in a fashion, pursuant to the industry standards, so to speak. Hope this was not another fishing expedition. Please let me know if there are any kinks in my thought process which should be ironed out for the sake of the consistency.

I thought (A) was a thinly veiled ally for someone who wants to weaken this president. Because if you measure someone's work productivity and time management in the same way, it would be like this: Whoever reviews the most amount of documents during the same 1 hr period is the most productive. That person ends up being the one best at time management since, in that universe, almost all the time, if you use your time efficiently, you can get as many works done as possible within that time frame, which is an indicator of work productivity. But, in reality, as we all know, they do not necessarily go in tandem. For instance, I am a slow reader so in order to cover all the assigned readings before the next class, I have to set aside as many minutes as possible for that one task. No more hanging out with chums or TV zapping or binge-watching...This means I might be good at time management because each minute counts to me and I do not waste any. But my productivity is fairly low in comparison with other high-functioning students who could finish reading all of them in less minutes. Thus, they can continue to live life to the fullest and have some fun on campus, while not compromising on their duty. Who knows how many rounds of beerpong or skinny-dipping they might have before the next class unlike a slow-on-the-uptake dork like I am?

Getting back to the point, in that way, this person is not serious about finding any correlation as well as causation that might exist inbetween by applying the same assessment standards to both categories. Then, this flawed evaluation on which his recommendation (a.k.a. argument) is predicated would persuade no one. Because, regardless of what, those two groups are supposed to be close to one another illicitly, if not identical. Then, it weakens his argument by blurring the conceptual distinctions between those efficient and those good at time management.

(B) is wrong because if good time management is likely to be swayed more by one's goal-oriented mindset than learned hacks, then this does weaken his argument. It would be better off to incentivize those mid-level managers with rewards to have them more driven.

(C) is wrong because this exposes the inefficiency of the current program. Then, why should it be repeated, instead of being revised? It might be better than nothing but there is no reason to stick to it as most of the attendees still remain unproductive.

(D) is our guy as it is the left field statement. That means it never does much to the argument we should weaken. This is about "the most managers who are already efficient". The target at stake in the question is "our mid-level managers". Some of them could be already good at time management. But this what-about-itsm will get us nowhere in this Weaken section. Besides, the most off-putting issue is that it deals with the set of people who do not have much in common with our target group. In terms of undermining his assertion, it is pretty much useless. Thus, (D) is the one.

(E) is wrong because it also weakens what this argument presupposes; Most of the managers who are efficient have not been touched by the grace of this president's pet project. Maybe a sliver of them..like 1 out of 100.. If they have been efficient and productive from Day one and did not even bother to show up for this event, what's the point of hosting it? Why does one need to have some faith in this program's efficacy?

Warning: The cited instance is based on a non-fictional episode. The readers' discretion is absolutely not needed.

I am not really good with this section but I think I can help u out on this one. Hope this works. If (D) is true, it also hurts the argument a bit. However, we need to assume this: You have to find the best way to do him/her in based on his/her main argument. Here is this person's pitch: Asking North Americans to cut down on their calorie intake is not gonna promise longevity for them because those guinea pigs in the lab environment forced to follow a low-calorie diet were just brought to normalcy with regards to their dietary regiment in comparison with their counterpart outside. So let us look deeper into what (D) is about. It states that some NAs who obey this light-eating habits are able to enjoy their long life-span. First of all, there is no correlation defined here with certainty. What if those North Americans living longer than usual happen to pick up their low-calorie eating habits later? Even if u grant that there is an anemic correlation inbetween, can this be close to any causation? Hell no.. For instance, there is Nana who just becomes 90 years old. She tends to eat lighter than others in terms of calories. But she has been practicing this only after her husband's death in her late 80s. Can we say for sure that her adopted habit is the secret behind her longevity? May be or may be not.. Then, this case has no serious value for undermining that person's argument. We need to go for the jugular by doing the opposite of his/her main argument, "we can draw parallels between the lab animals and North Americans in general because they both are prone to consume more calories than recommended. The more diametrically opposed to the argument at issue, the better..That means, just like those over-fed lab animals, if NAs lower their calorie consumption to make their diets as normal as they could get, then they are expected to live longer. That is the ultimate that will liquidate it. So their calorie-cutting or abatement won't go in vain as alleged by this author.

The only point that is at odds with my takeaway is that the conclusion of Jean. I thought Jean just wanted to introduce cheaper models in the range of $700-800 to boost the total sales, divvying up and carving out a niche. I did not read her intention to conquer the mass market with low-cost products because her main squeeze has been to maintain the company's dominance in the high-end sector. She just wants to sell more items even at the conceivable cost of compromising the brand value by resorting to this: the more the better. Yet she hopes to secure their firm grip on the luxury market which could be on the line, according to Tracy, if they invite those rivals to line-up their expensive brands like Toyota's Lexus. Tracy thinks this could hoist those runner-ups to the same level of their company in the exclusive VIP club. Thus, she believes they should not take their eyes off of their cash cow as this playing footsie with the mass-market items, in the end, could dial down their sales in general. No extramarital affair but stay faithful to ur spouse.

The only point that is at odds with my perception is that the conclusion of Jean. I thought Jean just wanted to introduce cheaper models in the range of $700-800 to boost the total sales, divvying up and carving out a niche. I did not read her intention to conquer the mass market with low-cost products because her main squeeze has been to maintain the company's dominance in the high-end sector. She just wants to sell more items even at the cost of compromising the brand value by resorting to this: the more the better.

Here medical science can be a good philsopher's stone to measure someone's biological maturity. Thus, it is a reliable source to resort to for that matter. But what ruins his argument is a shell-game like shift. He clearly says that society is required to grant all the perks of adulthood to those fulfilling social responsibilities like paying taxes, child-rearing, and practicing any profession. In the middle of the stream, he, however, tried to change horses for no apparent reason than his whims. He never provided us with a cogent reason to justify his later argument that anyone whose physical development is mature enough to be an adult deserves those perks aforementioned. That he turned to med science for the scientific fact that "people become adults at their age 17" causes no stir. No problema. Nada. But its being a sufficient ground for the eligibility for the adulthood perks does not sit well with his initial argument that "society is obliged to give them to those folks who meet certain criteria defined by him". Apparently, he just blurred that distinction. He smudged his logic with a big thumb print which is called Equivocation.

(C) claims that one is mixed up about proving the fact that sth transpired and proving the evidence of sth that transpired long ago. Here the problem is one could not warrant the rationale behind his explanation for the cause of sth that transpired. He unjustly reduces possible candidates for the cause of the described event, finding the ancient fossil originating from the land under the sea, into one. The ice on the surface must have been thawed at the time when the fossil was manufactured. But there could be other explanations for that. For instance, there was a quake that disrupted the subterranean strata. Thus, the fossil was embedded in the place where it was found anachronistically. He was not confused about proving the cause of the event. He just assumed that one account is the only available choice we have.

I hope this would help. (E) is wrong because Jolene caves into that some shrimp farmers have ditched their farming sites at the cost of harming the enviornment. Thus, they do not disagree with one another on that issue. U said there was a concession. The question is what makes them disagree with each other.

(A) is wrong because in the end, those farmers are going to leave their farms which is confirmed even by Jolene. She says that "Most owners try to make sure that their farms are productive for many years". That means after years when those farmers can no longer profit from the farms, they render them inoperable by folding the businesses.

(B) is our guy because Jolene thinks one needs to put down a lot of seed money to install all the equipment needed for farming and some time to reap the final products and yield consistent returns so, except some exceptional farmers, most of them would not realize their get-rich-quick scheme or make money out of it ASAP. But Alex slams those farmers for doing that with no ambiguity. Thus, that is the issue that pits them against each other.

(C) is wrong because both sides see eye to eye on this. They think shrimp farming does harm the mother nature. So the opposite of that cannot be the issue that separates them.

(D) is wrong because they do acknowledge the effect of trashing those farms one way or another.

(E) is the point where Jolene meets Alex despite their disagreement on the degree of it. Alex said, as if the rule of thumb in the industry, those who bankroll the shrimp farming damage the environment by abetting and aiding this unsustainable business model for their instant gratification. Once juiced out, those geese laying golden eggs are slaughtered to find juicier ones to squeeze out more juice.Jolene does give a nod to this to a certain degree;"Although some shrimp farms have proved unsustainable and have been quickly abandoned".

Laurel: Contemporary ethical hypotheses must be thrown away or, to make them adjustable minimally, they need to be retrofitted for they cannot ply us with guides in polemic circumstances, which are exactly the moments when people do need them as they are up the creek with no paddle. That is the most wanted time.

Miriam: A moral theory, like a protective shield, can come in handy even though it is not applicable to every situation. Having a bearing on a wide range of frequent circumstances is all we call for and want from a moral theory.

The question asks us to find the issue that set them apart.

This is a plain vanilla question as (C) sums up the sentiment precisely. A moral theory's suitability relies on its capacity to walk us through the tunnel when there was no ray of light by being a beacon of light. Should that be a prerequisite for a moral theory? That is the issue at stake. Laurel says when we are in dire straits, we need to turn to those theories in a search for practical guidance. Thus, they should be readied for that purpose. Miriam took issue with that by saying that all we need from them is a piece of advice sweeping the broad scope of our everyday life. (E) is wrong because no one addressed the issue that any moral guidance brought to life on the heels of moral conundrums is less likely, if not, to give us proper advice for more ordinary cases.

I just thought that being diagnosed with depression for the first time in the mid-life is prevalent among many depression patients would not strengthen the study's conclusion that the mid-aged folks feel more afraid of dying than the elderly. Because that factor does not make necessarily anyone in their 40s and 50s fear death more. What does the appearance of latent depression have anything to do with rendering anyone chickened out by the shadow of death? The rest of the choices made more sense to me. A) The older one gets the better they learn how to cope with the idea of death.

B) Those in their 40s and 50s have their charges contingent on them economically so the very thought of their death could give them cold feet.

D) The older one gets the more unflappable one becomes. As one gets mature, one could easily reconcile with the concept of mortality as it is pending.

E) Because of their high-functioning mind, not falling through the cracks of dotage, the mid-aged could feel more alerted to the consequences of death.The elderly might watch the sun setting as if in acceptance while wrapping up their final chapter in peace because they know there is nothing they can do about it. But those mid-aged would feel more graphic about the ramifications of their disappearance from the scene called life as they still feel alive. Thus, they cannot be at peace with putting out that little fire.

I just focused on the conclusion where his logic was rather tenuous. This writer says it would be no biggie for scientists to observe prevalent conventions in the community which condone any collegial acceptance based on factors other than research validity. Social ties and privileges could move the needle to bring about a nod to the researcher for the work. But this deep-rooted practice would not hurt the community's reputation or compromise its integrity because other social issues as well as components equally command respect to tip the balance in all the other human spheres. In other words, all human efforts are measured in accordance with the man-made conventions and norms.

(A) is wrong because the author did not limit the social reasons as the sole standards. There was no exclusivity.

(B) is the one because this person presumes whether a certain deed would stall the accomplishment of a specific bid for objectives or not hinges on the dissemination of similar deeds in other undertakings.(the spread of those attempts in practice)

(C) is wrong because one has no reason to think twice about scientists' considering other relevant evidence when approving the argument though they do factor in social reasons for that purpose. Here, the weakest link is "Since other same-natured factors powerfully affect all the other human efforts, the overlooked conventions are not going to do in the community's standing or harm the research ethics and etc.".We have no need to consider whether those scientists weighed other pieces of evidence while mulling over social factors because his conclusion is tainted by his stretch of logic: if someone does something, then I can do the same.

(D) is wrong because scientists' mens rea would not change the end result of their commission. Whether this prejudiced practice was conducted unwittingly or not would not exert any influence on this issue at stake.

(E) is wrong because it is the opposite of what the author presupposed as the rarionale behind his conclusion.

If we read the question carefully, there is no way for us to read out info like that those laureates willfully opted for the Acme retirement plan nor passionately endorsed it like Larry David for FTX. One thing I was told not to do was to distort the existing situations. We should not contort the hypothesis but spot loopholes in the logic.

"Every member of the Merit Prize recipients in the last 2.5 decades is on the receiving end of the Acme 401(k) plan as they have registered for the retirement coverage. Because of their status as the nation's chief economists superbly good at crunching numbers, relying on the fact that they were awarded the best economic prize, the plan has been traded as the best for the twilight phase of retired wage-earners/ former employees who are no longer on the payroll. On the condition that a buyer might hope to meet the similar financial demands or be in the comparable financial circumstances, it is safe to assume that this will do good to him/her by delivering those promises".

(A) is not necessarily the answer because those winners somehow realized their needs in the end or what was best for them after trials and errors. Then, this can be testimony to the quality of their current plan.

(B) is tangential because we have no reason to think about other alternatives as this ad assumed that those math geeks chose the Acme plan above all. Based on their expertise and knowledge, if the plan was selected,then, no other programs should be addressed. At least, it is not going to harm the rationale behind this commercial.

(C) is wrong because no winner has ever come out to embrace the main argument that "As the Merit Prize winners selected this plan with volition, that fact stands by any beneficiary's future satisfaction so long as he/she shares the similar fiscal concerns and situations". This conclusion was not espoused by any of the winners who have been on board with this plan whether voluntarily or not.

(D) makes some sense because, at least, some could have no other choice but to accept what was given to them when they found a suitable teaching post respectively. They might have had no luxury to be picky about their retirement plans when signing up for contracts or finding decent posts at school. For example, if one associate econ professor ,wanting to be a tenured faculty member, got a job offer from a university other than her current one, she had to hop from one school to another. Inbetween, her retirement insurance provider could have been unwantedly changed as the latest employer has been unilaterally putting money into the State farm program. In this case, we cannot assume that she has been advocating for the program's high yields and financial security.

(E) is moot because the ad already specifies this: for anyone with"Retirement needs similar to theirs".

(D) was a tempting bait. But, "Regardless of", kinda gives us a cue that each group is equally assigned to both therapists. Thus, one might say, not contingent on the therapists' specialties, it is safe to say that the equal percent of the patients treated by both groups, for both period of the treatment, got better equally. I think the indicative word for levelling the field was "Regardless of". When it used this, it was like "all things are being equal". So the same number of patients were allocated to each group of therapists, either general or special. But the problem is there is no hint at the status of patients. If their recovery rates for major improvements were the same, then we also need to know their original status before the medical assistance. What if those patient groups were flipped?

For instance, if I sprain my ankle, then I can expect to experience the same major improvement from both therapist groups. But if I have a lumbar distortion or scoliosis, then there is no guarantee that I might enjoy the same major improvement within the same time period by general therapists. In addition, between two groups, there was no degree of improvement disparity. Therefore, it is pointless to think about a distinction between major improvements and any improvements.

I am baffled to learn that some folks struggled with Choice (E). First of all, almost every one finally came to realization that (A) is the best because Youth can be the ultimate reason why one experiences both phenomena. Or one's robust physique can account for both. For instance, I am an athlete in my 20s. Because I did not pass my prime yet, I do not need to sleep more than 8 hrs and I can be super healthy and suffer no serious illness and medical conditions. That catchall factor contributes to both of the events transpired to me. (E) sounds a bit outlandish. First of all, there is no negative consequence to begin with. As far as I am concerned, in this case, the consequence is that "I contract less diseases and I fare better in the health department". The problem is what connection exists between that consequence and me sleeping less than 8 hrs

(a phenomenon). I might have my logic fall through the cracks if I mistake "me sleeping less than 8 hrs=mild sleep deprivation" for me getting less sick. Here, my clean bill of health is a positive consequential event that accompanies my sleeping less than 8 hrs per day.That is a collateral effect. But that does not need to stem from "my light sleep deprivation or deficiency". Any superficial correlation between two can be explained by a common factor which brings about two aforementioned events simultaneously. (B) is wrong because (A) liquidates it. There is no need to think about other factors causing "that better health" for one's thinking was flawed to dismiss this consideration about why there was a seemingly cogent correlation between the mild sleep deprivation and better health from the beginning. This correlation does not need to be reduced into a cause-and-effect relationship. It could be accounted for by an overarching cause that triggers both as the accompanying results.That way of thinking is more reasonable and sound.

I just thought that we need to find a piece of evidence manifesting the neutrality of the religious historians. Despite their deep commitment to the church, they could pore over the accumulated data, independent of their ties and preconceptions, to draw a relatively impartial conclusion on any group they chronicled. In order to do so, we need to cite an example showing that not every group under their watch was portrayed as "devouts". (A) does not need to be the case because it just says that those scholastic monks recorded every aspect of the medieval farmers' life. This alone does not challenge the argument that the sacred cross of the scholars was not tilting towards their idealism in which every component of society is dedicated to God. Their holy-spirited lens might have tainted their perspective to consider their watched groups more religious than they were indeed. But the fact that there were some groups who were not depicted in that way, at least, partially negates that bias assertion. If so, no matter what, every facet of the medieval caste system, when painted, should have been airbrushed with that projected religious zeal or fealty. Thus, (C) makes a more convincing case.

Your choice was not bad but it helped this A-hole standing between the public safety and reckless endangerment to consolidate his PoV. If you give a nod to this "Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors". That only cements his argument that we almost have no chance to see lobsters develop gills in their brief lifespan in the industrial harbors where they are supposed to steel themselves for coming down with this disease if they live long enough. Thus, the best way to poke holes in his logic is (E).

I thought this way so I ended up settling down for (E). I hope this would help. He said there is barely a chance to have any red lobsters grow upto the point of developing gills. Without gills, there would be no gill disease no matter what amount of human manure-stricken sewage water affects their habitat. Here is a catch. "Barely" means there could be at least one out of 10,000 which could contract this disease. What if this abnormally mature lobster deals a fatal blow to a human being who happens to consume it? Are you gonna let everyone be exposed to this lethal danger, just because of their appetite for Bisque soup or Lobster Wasabi Mayo sandwich? According to the proposed measure, this can be avoided so long as we re-direct the drainage system which will take the dirty water to different locations. In that way, we can minimize the deadly harm arising from contaminated water from the sewers. The question here is "Is it worth re-directing that water?". We need to dismantle his saying "No" to this. What matters more than human lives at risk? By taking this feasible measure, if we can save some lives, are you still gonna deny that? No way....

I am in.