Weaken (Powerful)

We are looking for the best/ correct answer that will either provide us with an alternative explanation or hurt the plausibility of the argument

in this case, we are dealing with stimulus where we are hurting its' plausibility

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - D

Why is B incorrect?

• Its impact is not as clear as D is.

• we are trying to weaken by saying that although the constituents are happy, this does not mean that people as a whole are happy

• in fact, B still allows for a bit of strengthening to occur bc it is saying at least some people would be happy which in this case are the constiuients

• the author is making comparing a general claim with a specific situation and this is what we needed to weaken their argument with

Why is D correct?

• D. can be paraphrased in a way by calling out the author's assumption of the general claim being applicable in his scenario

• just bc the constiuents are happy dont mean that everyone as a whole are happy and that is how we weaken the plausibility of the author's argument through D

NA (Provable)

We need to find an answer that if negated will weaken the argument

or we need to find an answer that serves as our missing link to the argument

Answer Chosen - A

Correct Answer - C

Why is A incorrect?

• Although this is true (if negated), it is not necessary to what is pertaining to the conclusion which is about maximizing profits

Why is C correct?

• C. takes that part of A and it also uses the conclusion in order to make itself necessary which is exactly why this is the correct answer!

• I need to get more comfy with negating unless but moving forward i know now that I can say whether or not which is a great way for me to actually wrap my head around it

Sufficient Assumption (SA)

We are looking for the answer that can 100% guarantee the conclusion of the argument true

we are trying to fill in the gaps within the argument with our correct answer

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - A

Why is D incorrect?

• If we were to contrapose D we would see how it is effectively wrong

• because it is incorporating that all members who were consulted did not agree, the chairperson was wrong for releasing the report.

• Since we do not know what they would have said (ie agree or diasgree) it really does nothing for us to gurantee this conclusion and for that it is wrong

Why is A right?

• A if contraposed allows us to guarantee our conclusion 100% true

• If CP did not have any consent from most(any) other members, it was not permissible to release the report

• the members were never able to give their consent because they weren't consulted

Weaken (Powerful)

We need to find the best (correct) answer that will allow us to effectively destroy the argument by way of alternative explanation or by hurting the plausibility of the argument

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - B

Why is B correct?

• The author goes on to argue that because Bats are shy creatures, they wont hurt us even if they are rabid

• B. allows us to hurt the plausibility of the argument by emphasising that although they do not move very often, when they attack they attack aggressively

  • this explanation allows us to confer with the idea of having these animals removed as opposed to just letting them stay in the building

Why is C incorrect?

• Unclear impact because we do not care about most animals or really any other animals at that

• we are trying to argue why the bats should be removed since the author argues otherwise

SA (Powerful)

We need to find the most powerful and strongest (correct) answer that will allow us to bridge the premises and conclusion together effectively rendering the argument 100% true

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - C

Why is C correct?

• We know that films that are okay for children to watch are either W or M but not T

• Adult films on the other hand, contain P & D, and so they can not be shown to children

• C. is essentially the bridge we need = P&D are essentially threatening because of the fact that they are dark themed

Why is B incorrect?

• Unclear impact because we do not know if animated films that are made for adults are appropriate for adults to begin with

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find the best/ correct answer that accurately describes the mistake the author committed in favour of their argument

In this case, we are seeing how the author infers a crazy conclusion without considering if at some point something can in fact be prevented

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - D

Why is D correct?

• D. is descriptively accurate

• although it seems to good to be true (at least for me), D is straight to the point with what the author is failing to consider or address = although these economists use state of the art tech, just because it is not working rn does not mean that i will never work. there is a possibility of the tech getting better

Why is E incorrect?

• it is a close runner up to D and this is why i chose it but it is in fact wrong

• there is no information that is being presented by the author and just based on this word we can already conclude that E is wrong

• Author did not state that these recessions wont occur, but rather that they are unpreventable and so we can eliminate E off this fact as well

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find the best/ correct answer that will accurately describe how the author made their mistake in service of their argument

in this case, they made a conditional error

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - D

Why is D correct?

• D. calls out the author's conclusion that the eagles will win their games if J does not play.

• Although, we know that in the past games, the eagles won when J did not play, we infer that the eagles WILL win as a result of this in their next game

Why is E incorrect?

• E. speaks on the computer analysis portion within the stimulus and that is not what we are after here

Solutions?

• Find the keywords that elude to the flaw

• the argument went from past instances and inferred something about the future just based on that

Strengthen (Powerful)

The correct answer will provide us with a powerful way to strengthen the argument via ruling out an alternative explanation or by adding plausibility to the argument being made

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - B

Why is D incorrect?

• This actually weakens the argument being made by the chemist

• if the data that was drawn from the studies used local soil conditions then it is indeed likely that the data is not misleading

Why is B correct?

• B affirms the author's contention that the study is in fact misleading

• it is just talking about how concentrated the two molecules are and does not draw upon their effects on the soil like D does

• it is simply saying, we added the same amount of X and we are seeing that they are having an adverse result

Loophole Flaw (Provable)

We need to find the correct answer that will accurately describe how the author messed up in service of their argument

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - C

Why is B incorrect?

• the author is not trying to draw an x caused y inference

• they are simply trying to argue that something plays a role (IBSE) in a causal relationship

Why is C correct?

• Since the author is arguing that the IBSE is a factor in a causal relationship, they overlooked the fact that it could be that something else also contributed to the causality or that nothing at all could have as well.

• The author is outrightly assuming that it was only the factor of IBSE

SA (Powerful)

We need to find the most powerful answer that if conjoined with the stimulus will render it 100% true

SA --> C --> NA for rule of thumb

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - B

Why is C incorrect?

• Too weak - Currently

• the author is looking to establish that it is genuinely impossible to explain consciousness through physical theory. C. is only saying that it CURRENTLY is not able to explained which means that there is still an ability to explain it

Why is B correct?

• B is essentially the contrapositive of what we are looking for which is still correct

• since PS and F cant explain consiousness, then we need something more than just those two in order to explain it essentially rendering the author's argument 100% true that it is impossible to explain C through PS and F

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find the best/ accurate answer that correctly describes how the author messed up in service of their argument

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - C

Why is B incorrect?

• It is too strong of an answer - words such as lowest/ general/ highest

• This is not descriptively accurate because the author is not saying anything that guarantees higher profits but rather that some things (low wages) can aid in the road to financial prosperity

Why is C correct?

• C. is descriptively accurate

• The author things that doing x will result in y but overlooks the fact that by doing x, will not result in y

Must be False? Flaw? (Provable)

I treated this question as a MBF solely based on the LEAST portion in the question stem

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - B

Why is B correct?

• We can conclude that B is correct because it is contradicting what is in the stimulus

• "you may recall" is include not only to remind the person the comissioner is speaking to that they were there, but also to elude that they were aware of the input they recieved from the NA

• moreover, the argument itself is not based on a conclusion being drawn based on incomplete recollections, but rather that the comiss. made a decision prematurely.

Classic Flaw (Provable)

We are looking for the answer that accurately describes how the author messed up in service of their argument

the author in this context is committing the classic Lack of Evidence v. Lack of Conclusion flaw!

Answer Chosen - A

Correct Answer - A

Why is A correct?

• A. is accurately describing how the author was making one of the famous flaws

• The author goes on to say that because two of the stones that are positioned in a way. the possibilities of it actually being pointed at the sun at sunrise at the spring equinox are too big and then concludes that the historians who were making these claims were unknowledgeable

• the author took a lack of evidence for something and concluding it wrong of the rip. that's wrong because there is still a way for us to conclude/ believe that the historians were in fact knowledgeable about these celestial events

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find the most provable correct answer that allows us to call out accurately how the author messed up in service of its argument

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - E

Why is E correct?

• E. is accurately calling out the author for contradicting their own IP (assumption) that they had when making their argument

• the author is stating that for us to hold criminals respo. for their actions --> we must forget that they are actions made by them but rather actions that come from their environment

• the author then goes onto say that those who are law-abiding citizens are the ones who should be held responsible for their actions since they are the ones who created this enviornment

• v. much a confusing stimulus nevertheless but at its core the author is trying to make a generalization with all actions and goes against their own wording when they start to create a divide between criminals and law abiding citizens

NA (Provable)

We need to find an answer that if negated, would weaken the argument

Or, we need to find the missing link

Remember, if C true, NA must be true

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - A

Why is A correct?

• First Doc. - explanation of any historical event must appeal to economic factors

• If negated, Doctrine 1 allows noneconomic factors in explanations of historical events - meaning that the author would not be able to explain that Doc. 1 is wrong

Why is C incorrect?

• Author is only pointing out that some events involve boths docs

• whther or not one is more or less influential than the other does not undermine the stimulus

Weaken (Powerful)

We need to find the most powerful answer that will either give us an alternative explanation or hurt the plausibility of the argument being made

in this context, we are looking to hurt the plausibility of the argument through a case-study/ scenario

Answer Chosen - A

Correct Answer - E

Why is E correct?

• We are trying to undermine the objection being made (EU is best left to OoM)

• When we look at E, we can directly undermine the objection being made because it shows that it would be ridiculous to base energy use on the operation of the market since there are times when something are being purchased/ used by people who did not initially purchase the given item or service

• The landlord buying analogy allows us weaken the objection that is being made

Why is A incorrect?

• Wrong impact - weakening both

• Unclear impact

• We need to weaken the objection being made. A is targeting both the objection and the sentences that preceded it

• It is also irrelevant whether or not maximum energy efficiency is achievable

SA (Powerful)

We need to find the most powerful answer that will connect the premises to the conclusion

Answer Chosen - A

Correct Answer - E

Why is A wrong?

• The stim accounted for the fact that Pluto had been ejected by Triton so we can not conclusively choose A because it does not render the conclusion true. There is no clear impact whatsoever from A

Why is E correct?

• The MC is that Pluto is not a true planet

• the CB (Pluto) forming in orbit around the sun exclusively would have been the best way to render the conclusion true because it touches on the aspect that for something to be a true planet it must do X

• Because Pluto did not form around the sun, (instead as a moon around Neptune), we can render that Pluto is not a real planet

MBT (Provable)

We need to find an answer that must be true based on the information that the stimulus is giving us

we are essentially drawing a 100% provable inference

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - E

Why is C incorrect?

• We are not accounting for the brilliant people in the stimulus so we can already rule C out

• It can also be possible that ALL legal voters are profs.

Why is E correct?

• Made way more sense to me once I looked this over in review

• because we are dealing with some = atleast 50%

  • this still means that there is another 50% unaccounted for

    • & this is why E can be regarding as correct

• The stim is accounting for the 50% of people who if BP are profs, LV and under eighteen

• E is accounting for that other half, which must be true

Loophole Flaw (Provable)

We need to find the correct answer that correctly/ accurately describes how the author overlooked our loophole in service of their argument

in this context, we see the author making a general claim (ie. more older more x, without proving that those same older folks would have given their info in the first place if they were younger)

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - A

Why is D wrong?

• The author is not committing the classic circular reasoning flaw

Why is answer A correct?

• A. is the loophole we needed to use to call out the author

• the author overlooked the fact, failed to prove that these same people (older) would give their information over the phone had they been younger

• What if --> they would not give info even if they were younger

Strengthen (Powerful)

We need to find the strongest/ most powerful answer that will either add more plausibility or defend an alternative explanation

in this context, we are adding plausibility to our argument

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - A

Why is C incorrect?

• Irrelevant = Profits

• We do not care about the profits because the manager is only talking about the sales that increased

• just off this notion, we can conquer that C is wrong

Why is A correct?

• it adds plausibility to the argument being made by the manager

• if MOS have been going down for companies that do not offer unlimited free shipping, but it went up for the managers company, then it adds plausibility to the idea that the policy change is what indeed caused the increase

Loophole Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that correctly calls out the author with our loophole.

whilst doing LF, useful to use the WHAT IF gimmick as it allows us to grammatically try to piece together our counter to the argument being made by the author in question

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - E

Why is B incorrect?

• it is simply irrelevant

• it would not make sense for us to call out the author by drawing on whether they considered the possibility that the MP can have any other type of flaw aside from design flaws

• the author is solely talking about design flaws and we need to stay within the bounds of the argument

Why is E Correct?

• E. is our Loophole

• while the author does bring up evidence (ie. liable to process information incorrectly because not all of its circuits could be checked manually) that their has been issues previously associated with the microp. and then tries to say that there is no chance of any flaws moving fwd. since they are now made entirely from computers

• but what if, the computers could still be faulty as well? we can not assume that there wont be any flaws at all

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that correctly/ accurately describes how the author messed up in service of their argument

in this context, we are dealing with the author making an overgeneralization/ relative v. absolute flawed move in service of their argument

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - E

Why is D incorrect?

• it is not descriptively accurate

• the author is not making the assertion that if you do not have a given property then you are unhealthy at all. its not mentioned

• they are instead, trying to say that those who slightly weigh more are healthier, and so to be healthy you got to be overweight which is the flaw at hand

Why is E correct?

• E. is descriptively accurate

• we are seeing how the author talks about how a group of people can have a property (being healthy) and then concluding, as an overgeneralization, that to be healthy as a whole, one must be overweight (absolute)

• this is how the author is messing up in service of their argument.

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that accurately describes how the author messed up in service of their argument

in this case, the author is committing the class conditional flaw (Nec. v. Suff. flaw)

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - A

Why is C incorrect?

• We need to really look at the vocabulary here to understand how conditional reasoning is being used in the argument being made.

  • MO --> HSI (the wording - depends upon really gives us that insight into what we are dealing with.)

• C. does not accurately describe that. the author is not relying on a claim that x implies the existence of y, but rather, that x depends upon the existence of y and that is a v. diff assumption that the author is making

Why is A correct?

• A. accurately describes how the author is committing the classic N v. S flaw

• the author is asserting that MO --> HSI but that does not mean that if HSI --> MO (bad will be punished) exists

Principle-Strengthen (Powerful)

We need to find an answer that will strengthen the principle within the stimulus

ties together the premises and the conclusion to further advance the argument

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - C

Why is B incorrect?

• The claims being made by the Ethicist are not about whether someone should be BLAMED, but rather, if one's actions are praiseworthy. Since B. does not touch on praiseworthiness, the answer is wrong already.

Why is C correct?

• I thought that there were two principles being laid out, and since C only touched on one aspect of the principle/statement (affording), i figured it was wrong on this point

• C. is correct though, because it does in fact touch on the praiseworthiness on an action/ behaviour and does in fact touch on the two principles/ statements with the overcoming of a desire and being able to afford it

Principle-Conform (Provable)

We need to find an answer that conforms to the principle in the stimulus

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - D

Why is B incorrect?

• Wrong Trigger/ Wrong Conclusion

• B is saying that one should consider ALL THE INFORMATION, whereas, we are looking for an answer that determines that the INFOMRATION IS INADEQUATE (one needs to be skeptical of the info)

• based on this notion, B. is incorrect and does not conform to the principle being stated in the stimulus

Why is D correct?

• Given that the principle is embedded on someone making a decision based on inadequate information that is being presented in front of them, D conforms to the principle

• ones personal experience = inadequate information

• study various models histories associated to the vehicle = adequate information that can be used to make a well informed decision