Cast off the chains of what is "reasonable" or "sane" and go dominate that test.

Really excited to collab with my coworker, mentor, and, most importantly, friend on this. Let's do this Chris!

Second what iolaw-12 says. Real world example: Smoking causes cancer, but not in everybody. Just because someone does not have cancer, that does not imply that they are not a smoker.

Hi Lauren,

The correct AC is D. The issue is that while old people might have "less" reasons to save than young people, we do not know how strong their respective reasons are. In other words, do old people and young people actually follow through on their reasons to save? Old people might only have one reason to save, but they actually decide to act on it and save money. Young people have 100 reasons to save, but they don't actually decide to save money. In this situation, old people are the ones who actually save money, and young people do not. This would be a problem for the argument, because the argument assumes that older people save less money.

B is incorrect because the argument does no assume that a negative savings rate is impossible. The author of the argument just thinks it won't happen in these prosperous nations.

One thing to be aware of is that we are concerned with animals running "up" hill, while E is talking about running in general.

Hey there! Here is a quick breakdown

western lake is 55% male and 45% female

eastern lake is 65% male and 35% female.

The last claim of the stimulus says that larger the disparity between sexes, the greater the percentage of adult male ducks.

Who has a larger disparity between sexes? Eastern lake! So we know that eastern lake has a larger percentage of adult males than western lake.

Answer Choice A reflects this inference.

I'm guessing you think there is an error in Answer Choice C. There is not. Answer choice C says that there the -actual- number of male ducks in eastern lake is greater than the actual number of male ducks in western lake. The problem is that we do not know how many ducks are in each lake, we only know the ratio of male to female ducks.

Weakening/strengthening tend to deal with causal reasoning. Questions that deal with validity are going to be conditional reasoning oriented because causal arguments are never valid. As such, SA/PSAr/PSAa deal with conditional reasoning.

I second everything that Can't Get Right said. I'll add that sometimes it can be hard to remember exactly why you picked a certain AC for a question. To combat this, a tool I recommend to my clients is a "Wrong Answer Journal." When blind reviewing, you write down why you are picking specifically that AC for each question before you grade the section. If you get the question wrong, you can see exactly why you chose that AC and begin to untangle any errors in reasoning you might be making.

If you want to do some more blind review and maybe meet some study buddies, I highly recommend you sign up for our group breakout session next Tuesday! We host them every month, and we group you with other 7Sagers who have a similar PT average as you. You sign up here: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMvcOmsrzIqGt3h0wVqnDsJjKE32CTxHXEs