#help for question 9, I chose B thinking that Manhattan was another example to show that Woody Allen’s peevish depiction of artists is present throughout his entire career. Wouldn’t that lend some support to B?

#help just curious but is it also valid to say that the Brillo Boxes example serves as a counterexample to the general principle (appearance alone entirely determines whether or not something is considered a work of art) the argument is trying to show as false?

#help

On top of the error that JY discusses, I think I found another one. I'm wondering whether this can also count as an error regardless of the right answer choice.

The premise states that every "new information handling technology" has produced the same accusation. And as an example, the author talks about the accusations written language faced. I thought written language has nothing much to do with information handling technology. So the example doesn't really illustrate the principle author cites. Does this also count as an error?

#help

I chose AC D because I think I misinterpreted the meaning of "prosperity." I thought prosperity meant something similar to standard of living (including factors like happiness, health and whatnot). So I thought the contradiction was although a portion of their income increased, the family's overall standard of living did not. I subsequently chose D because I thought competition somehow affected the family's "prosperity." Like, for instance, although they made more money, the process of getting there was competitive and thus, taxing, ultimately affecting the family's, say, happiness. Am I making too much of an assumption by assuming that competition can affect standard of living?

Or is it wrong to interpret "prosperity" in terms of standard of living? I see how AC C is correct, but not 100% sure how D is incorrect.

#help This question really confused me because of the phrase “qualified as a medical specialist”. Here is my thought process.

Qualify as MS → graduate university AND complete 4yrs of med school AND 2-6 years of residency.

Recognized Specialist → complete evaluation

And since the conclusion says

"Qualified” as “recognized” medical specialist → competent

I combined the two conditions to push out,

(graduate university AND complete 4yrs of med school AND 2-6 years of residency) AND complete evaluation → competent.

Thus, using the contrapositive to push out 4 or statements, if your’re incompetent, then you mighy have completed the evaluation but not your residency (or med school or even university). This would render AC D unnecessary.

Please correct me.

#help So I got this question right but am not sure 100% how B weakens the argument. B is saying that motivation is more important than good technique when it comes to time management. But it’s not saying that good technique isn’t important or more precisely that time management doesn’t depend on good technique. It simply says that there are other things to consider. Thus, I thought even if motivation is more important, this doesn’t distract from the recommendation, since good technique still can be important (just not as much as motivation). The conlusion about the recommendation doesn’t seem to assume that this seminar is the best way to improve time management, so why would something else being more important weaken the recommendation. I get that the other choices are worse and that’s how I got it right but let’s say that this was a “weakening” question instead of a “weakening except.” Would B still serve as a correct answer?

So this question really confused me because D started with the phrase “at the place where the sandstone was found.” Assuming that the stone is very old, I thought it would be possible for the sandstone to have moved. Thus, even though at the place of discovery the geological process might not have marked the sandstone, it could be possible that at other places where the sandstone was at before discovery, the geological process might have formed the marks. I’m not really sure how D weakens the conclusion. #help

I'm still extremely confused about this question. So I understand D to be saying that the correlation between "profound creativity" and "increase in theta waves" that the columnist points out in the first sentence, isn't really a correlation, and thus nowhere close to a causation relationship. But I'm not sure how this describes the flaw. I thought the main flaw was the jump from the premises to the sudden causal relationship between music and profound creativity. The columnist (1) establishes a supposed correlation between profound creativity and an increase in theta waves and (2) establishes a causal relationship between music and an increase in theta waves. And from here, concludes that there is a causal relationship between music and profound creativity, which seem completely unrelated. Shouldn't the AC address this groundless causal relationship the columnist establishes, instead of pointing out that the correlation established in (1) doesn't really exist? #help

Just really confused about this quesiton and especially the answer choice in general.

So I got the question right, but have one small question about diagramming this argument. I wasn't really sure whether I could link up the phrase "most lecturers who are effective teachers are eccentric" and "some noneccentric lecturers are very effective teachers" just like the way JY did. My concern was the first had to do with "effective teachers" and the second had to do with "very effective teachers" and JY here assumes effective teachers -> very effective teachers. Diagramming them separately doesn't affect the answer choice in this case but still, I remember solving an SA question where one word did make a difference. #help

#help So I did choose D but one minor thing kinda threw me off. D says that we are morally obligated not to destroy anything that will most likley enrich, either intellectually or emotionally our posterity. But the argument says that if preserved, books will almost certainly contribute to the intellectual and emotional enrichment of future generations. In other words, the argument is saying that books will contribute both to intellectual and emotional enrichment, and not just one of the two. But interpreting D, it seems valid to say that books can enrich our posterity solely intellectually (or solely emotionally, or both), which is not what the argument puts forth. The argument assumes that books contribute to both while D's principle says that it can contribute to either one, not necessarily both. I thought there was a mismatch here. Any clarifications?

#help Quick question about (D). When I diagramed AC (D), I diagramed it as

polygon ↔ "closed plane figure bounded by straight lines."

I thought the Ac said, if something is a polygon, then by definition, it would be a closed plane figure bounded by straight lines. Also, if there is a closed plane figure bounded by straight lines, then that would be a polygon. So the resulting diagram would be a biconditional. Not that it affects the correct AC but just wondering why JY diagramed it as

"closed plane figure bounded by straight lines" → polygon.

#help so I did choose AC A because there weren't any other better ACs, but I still don't get why AC A is a necessary assumption. Even if a company that pursues its debtors on its own doesn't collect more than 15 percent of the total amount there might be other benefits assocaited with collecting the money on its own and not giving the job to a collection agency. For instance, it might be expensive to make a collection agency collect payment from the customers and even if the company doesn't collect more than 15% on its own, (let's say it collects exactly 15%), then wouldn't it be better for the company to pursue its debtors on its own?

I just think that it's not necessary for the company to collect more than 15% of the total amount.