I got tripped up by the analogy. I couldn’t determine its role in the argument and being on 7sage all i remember about argument by analogy is that its wrong. So while AC D seemed very attractive, I thought it was a trap because it talked about something that was irrelevant to the argument/conclusion. I saw an earlier comment that noted whenever they see ABA as part of an argument, they know they have to make sure that argument holds, so the larger argument can hold. Is that something that will show up often/can be used all the time? Or is this question a unique one

#help (Added by Admin)

Did anyone else second guess C just because it sorta restates the premise? The AC says theyre imagining the correlation while the premise says “we found no correlation”. Wasted a good 30 seconds trying to decide if the answer was too simple

Other than intuition, is there any quick way to realize that the first part of the passage is irrelevant? That made things more confusing for me trying to figure out how to factor those into the linking when in reality they were just fluff. Or is the only way to understand they are irrelevant is through mapping it out #help (Added by Admin)

Does ‘influence’ count the same as ‘causation’ in logic? That was what turned me off this answer, because i wasnt sure if influence was the same thing as caused and I know with these harder questions, often the language subtleties can kill you

#help I know this is dumb, but I immediately chose A, then overthought it because i read the conclusion as “Debbie didnt use sleight of hand, trick deck or a volunteer”. So A says its possible she just switched her method for each test. But the conclusion says she didnt use any of the methods, so if she switched methods then she would still be using one of the methods. How does the conclusion rule out that line of thinking? Would it need to say “1 AND 2 AND 3” instead of “1 nor 2 nor 3”?

Did the same thing. My guess would be that its a specific claim about the job/hiring, not a claim applying to multiple things. So like a universal claim could be “happiness is better than sadness” but when you make a claim thats specific to just one situation then it doesnt qualify as universal. Definitely purposefully tricky language