- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
@wylangao im new to RC and i love how you strike out the parts of the answer choices that arent supported and those that are. it really shows how a little part of an answer choice can make it wrong
Hi everyone,
I have been struggling with RC for quite a while and I was wondering if everyone could please comment some tips that they wish they knew when they were struggling or some other general information that helped them.
Thank you soo much!
IM SO MAD I GOT THIS WRONG WTHHHHHHHHHHHHH IT WAS SO EASY WHAT A STUPID MISSSSSS ZONT MAKE ME CRY
A says: Pesticides that harmed wildlife have been banned.
What does that mean?
It means fewer deer are dying from pesticides.
The hunters are still killing deer.
The wolves are still killing deer.
Habitat is still shrinking.
BUT
Many more deer are surviving because one major source of death disappeared.
So now it's believable that the population still increases.
i wasn't convinced that the judge was the one giving jury instructions but after rereading the first sentence "At mock trials in which jury instructions were given in technical legal jargon, jury verdicts tended to mirror the judge's own opinions." i was able to see that the instructions that were given, with legal jargon, enabled the jury to mirror the judge's own opinions. so the judge must've giving the instructions if the jury mirrored the judge's opinions.
d) yes. this explains why yogurt sales looked unusually weak. Example:
Without advertising:
Milk: +0%
Yogurt: -20%
With advertising:
Milk: +8%
Yogurt: +5%
Advertising still affects yogurt more relative to what would have happened otherwise, but the nationwide decline keeps the observed increase smaller than milk's. Advertising helped yogurt, butyogurt sales were dropping nationwide. the stimulus is saying store brand milk sales increased MORE THAN sales of storebrand yogurt. it doesnt say that yogurt didnt increase or declined it just says milk has higher sales. so if people in general are just not buying yogurt, that could explain why the sales were lower for yogurt in comparison to milk. the sales might've still increased but not more than the milk bc theres a decline in the nation for some reason.
e) This answer requires us to make an unsupported assumption about LargeCo's milk prices. The answer says that consumers choose milk based on price, but it never tells us whether LargeCo's store-brand milk was cheaper than competing brands, whether LargeCo lowered its price, or whether the price changed at all.
Without that information, we cannot conclude that price explains why LargeCo's store-brand milk sales increased more than its store-brand yogurt sales. A stronger answer would have said that LargeCo's milk was cheaper than other brands, causing consumers to switch to it.
Therefore, E does not resolve the discrepancy; it only tells us how consumers generally choose milk, not why LargeCo's milk sales increased more.
for B the sufficent condition presented in the answer choice never occurs in the stimulus. since the stimulus doesnt present this condition, the necessary condition "the soot is probably the cause of the ailment" cant occur. therefore this is not the correct answer choice.
@hannahhuynh for B, when you say "we dont have the trigger" are you referring to "other air pollutants" as the trigger?
@zsamine finding a claim (effectiveness of new herbal mixture for cold) to be false on the ground that it would, it true, (Suppose that the mixture were an effective cold remedy) have consequences (almost everybody with a cold would be using it) that are false (many people who have colds do not use the mixture)
please correct me if i made any mistakes.
@AminaJensen USUALLY yes. But not always directly. I used to get stuck on SA for this same reason too but sometimes the missing link connects two ideas in the argument rather than pointing straight to the conclusion. Once that missing link is added (like "can't discern personalities → won't care"), the conclusion follows logically. In terms of diagramming, the answer is no. A sufficient assumption just has to complete the logical chain. Sometimes the last step is to the conclusion, and sometimes the missing piece is earlier in the chain, allowing the conclusion to follow automatically. That's exactly what happened in this question.
The columnist's whole purpose is to refute the reasoning given for the claim. He does not try to refute the actual claim that attending a live musical performance is a richer experience than listening to recorded music. Rather, he responds to the "some others" position, which claims that the reason live performances are richer is merely because listeners cannot see the performers. The columnist directly attacks that explanation by introducing evidence that weakens it, leading to the conclusion that there must be some other reason.
it is (the claim that attending a live musical performance is richer than listening to recorded music) what the position that the columnist tries to undermine (the claim that it's merely because we don't see the performers) is purported to explain.
in plain english: the claim that live performances are richer is the thing that the opposing explanation claims to explain.
the argument is presenting a causal link between:
colic in infants NOT being caused by the inability of the infants to tolerate certain antibodies found in cow's milk.
our goal is to weaken that causal link.
so, we need an answer choice that shows how colic in infants IS being caused by this ability to tolerate cow milk antibodies.
D) this shows how, when cow milk is eliminated from an infants diet and the babies are fed only breast milk, the symptoms of colic disappear. this answer choice weakens the causal link.
when C is negated it becomes "a period of time greater than three months would have been better to use in judging whether the drug has an effect on the duration of vertigo."
"would have been better" does not wreck the argument because it still leaves room for the possibility that 3 months is still a sufficient amount of time.
we need an answer choice that justifies the conclusion that the muderer must've been samantha.
the word ‘exploited’ messed me up. I was stuck between D and E. D is basically saying that advertisers take advantage of something that already exists instead of causing it themselves which makes sense🙂
tbh i didnt know what the question stem was asking but now i know that its talking about a control group when assessing this situation. c makes sense
@ethand479 had the same hesitation with B but after going thorugh the rest of the ACs, B seemed to be the best one
B says that if you consume a substance that delays muscle fatigue, then problems caused by dehydration are invariably worsened. This cannot be true because small amounts of sugar delay muscle fatigue while actually enhancing the body's absorption of water. Therefore, something that delays muscle fatigue does not necessarily worsen dehydration.