My reasoning for why B is wrong - the conclusion is making the claim that Many would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them. So, Thomson is the best person to lead the nation. But someone being a BETTER leader doesn't mean that they're a GOOD leader. Answer choice B argues that what if opposing taxes isn't enough to guarantee good leadership? Well it probably doesn't matter. What if in this world, Thomspon is actually a shit leader but everybody else is shit but he opposes taxes so hes still a BETTER leader than others? So this doesnt cast doubt on the argument, because the argument never claims that opposing higher taxes is going to make you a GOOD leader.
A also states that opposing higher taxes is not a contributing factor into good leadership. In this hypothetical world, the author is arguing that opposing higher taxes makes you a better leader, so opposing higher taxes is assumed to do something to elevate Thompson from being shit to slightly less shitty. But if A is correct in that its not a contributing factor at ALL into good leadership, then how can we elevate Thompson from shit to less shitty? We want to argue that he has a quality that makes him a slightly less shitty leader (aka better), but A is arguing opposing higher taxes is not a quality that is going to make you better! If anything, if A would be correct even if it said something like opposing higher taxes is not a contributing factor into leadership at ALL because that makes the idea that Thompson is better completely redundant.
The claim is that the figure is unreliable because its based on a partial review of air traffic control tapes. The conclusion directly attacks the figure using evidence that its only a partial review so cannot be reliable.
I thought the flaw was that - why is the author arguing this figure is unreliable? Even if it's a partial review, it could still be a reliable indicator of risk.
The closest prediction match to this was D. But D is a trap answer: the argument does not assume that the air traffic tapes themselves do not provide accurate information concerning specific flights. The argument presumes that partial reviews of tapes will lead to unreliable figures, regardless of whether they are accurate or not.
Therefore, the next answer closest to the evidence used, is B - the author argues that the figure is unreliable compared to the other figure which is based on a through study. But the same flaw can be applied: what makes this figure so much more reliable than the other one? What if it's not? why are we assuming that this is going to be reliable?
This question is difficult under timed conditions because NA questions naturally nudge you to choose answer choices that inevitable strengthen the argument but are not necessary for the existence of the argument. I was tempted by B, it's likely because there was a hidden assumption: you assume if it's true that the moth does not have the speed or agility to escape from predators, the author is naturally assuming this in order to reach the conclusion that the Natal grass cycad is in danger of extinction because its also highly unpalatable.
But, even if it did have speed or agility to escape some predators, the author makes the claim that its in danger of extinction because the grass is in extinction. The answer choice faces two problems: 1) it is out of scope of the stimulus (author does not mention anything related to these traits, they are only drawing a specific claim between grass --> extinction) and 2) if the moth had speed or agility to escape some predators, this being true does nothing for the argument that its in danger of extinction. What if they can escape it but regardless, the biggest defense it has is the toxin? What if moths main cause of death is never not being able to escape but rather the toxin allowing them to not be eaten?
This question is really difficult because if you rely on the identification of whether the AC is descriptively accurate to the flaw, there's alot of things that can trip you up. The biggest takeaway for me is that you need to cut through the noise and be super specific about the claim that the conclusion itself is making: the conclusion is claiming that "small observational study" (in other words, all small observational studies), are more likely to have dramatic findings OVERALL. This is evidenced by newspapers generally reporting on scientific findings that sound dramatic, and that these are more frequent in small studies than large randomized trials.
But we can never draw a powerful conclusion like this from weak premises like these. We cannot claim that this is true for all small observational studies when we're only talking about studies with dramatic findings in newspaper reports. The sample itself is not sufficient to draw a claim about all small observational studies. How can we claim that this is true of all, just from what is true in newspaper reports?
This is what the explaination video explains from the jump to subset of data to a superset claim.
wait this is SO evil because tell me why i read: only Medina shares her opinion on that issue as ONLY MEDINA ACTUALLY HAS AN OPINION AND SHARES HER OWN OPINION ON THE ISSUE
this question is sickens me because considering how in Q9 the correct answer was not the 'ornate' vase, the way they made this one be subtly different through 'ornamental' is crazy work
I think the answer feedback for A could include that inference about younger killer whales being able to 'better tolerate' engine noise is not provable. Furthermore, the stimulus makes no distinction between younger and older killer whales, and the inference of damage hearing overtime is really a far stretch to say that can say anything about younger and older whales to me personally
Is it possible to blind review the questions you got wrong on PT's that you import from Lawhub? Trying to figure it out but it seems like there's no official blind review just the ability to review the blank question itself. Any guidance would be super helpful!
I was so tempted by D...because with NA questions, under timed conditions it is SO easy to choose something that strengthens the relationship between the premise and the conclusion.
But we're looking for something that states the link between the evidence and the conclusion. Answer choice D doesn't say anything about choosing wisely which is crucial as the conclusion, and states something incredibly unsupported and strong about emotional tendencies (that they determine emotions alone).