The stimulus is a point at issue: disagree. Roxanne believes the markets for old and new ivory are independent: thus, advocating for those who are concerned with endangered species to ONLY buy antique (old) ivory that is more than 75 years old. On the other hand, Salvador believes the markets for old and new ivory are related, so demands have a relationship, therefore; believing that those concerned with endangered species should refrain from buying ivory.

A) Not supported by stimulus

B) Correct, they disagree about the demand relationships between old and new ivory, Roxanee disgarees and Sal agrees.

C) Wrong, they both agree people should take steps

D) not in stimulus, Roxanee might agree

E) I chose this trap answer, but after review it is clear they both would agree that one should refrain from buying new ivory.

Assumed- of the parties

Assumed fidelity and ignored possibility of affairs/children born outside of marriage

Assumptions are subtle.

This is a tricky stimulus, I chose D on the first run because I saw the gap between bone samples and blood samples, but I chose B on blind review. I see how B makes two mistakes with rate and inferred being a weak word choice.

Evaluate questions are tricky, but I get why C is correct because if the argument is concluding that due to zero complaints, then the replacement signs are waste of time and money, surely it would hurt the argument if it is true that the city annually replaces signs and could help the argument if it isn't true by blocking a potential counterargument.

D) who cares about other cities? What does do for evaluating our argument?

E) who cares about experts?

B) 1st red flag is manufacturing costs, 2) it is not about whether the new signs are more or less than the older ones, it is about them being a waste of time and money.

A) This feels more aimed at the premise, then argument as a whole.

So, A bridges the gap between premise and conclusions by showing that the wide variety of bacteria killed by modern antibiotics allows for the drug-resistant bacteria to flourish...

B) who cares about the years of usage? Feels like this answer baits you to make unwarranted assumptions.

C) Who cares about price? Does not help strengthen argument

D) Who cares about cost of treatment?

E) Trick answer, but actually weakens the argument because it says modern antibiotics can actually kill bacteria that the older ones couldn't, so i think it gets at drug-resistant bacteria as well.

Arbitrary distribution flaw

Hi! I am interested, as well.

take a break, honestly. I'm nowhere near my desired score and still hoping for the best on the November test too :( But, I have been experiencing burn out, so I took two days off and plan to do only drills this weekend. If you don't want to completely stop, then maybe do some old drills just to refresh certain concepts. Regardless, hang in there :)

congrats! best of luck on your law school journey.

Concurred ugh

Read the stimulus :(

This was a tricky one

Anyways, I picked D, but if I am understanding correctly, then D is irrelevant and too weak because the stimulus is about calories-diet and analogies between lab animals (mice) and North Americans. So, A most weakens the support between premise and conclusions because it shows that North Americans overeat and consume more calories then the optimal number, so if they reduce their calories then it could have the same effects as reduced-calories have for lab animals (mice).

B is wrong because it talks about high-fat vs low-fate diets, does not attack the relationships in the stimulus.

C is wrong because it is irrelevant to the stimulus.

D is wrong because it is super weak and does not attack the support between premises and conclusions, plus the stimulus talks about reduced-calories vs overeating.

E is irrelevant as well.

I did not choose E because it talked about previous workers, whereas the stimulus says current works. However, after further review, it shows why the rate at this power plant is considerably low.

Cost- Benefit Analysis/Accounting flaw

argument concludes making products from some types of recycled material is equally as damaging to environment as products from nonrecycled materials solely due to energy consumption.

Congratulations!

Congratulations Josh! This is so inspiring.

Strengthen helps strengthen relationship between premises and conclusion

PSA makes argument almost valid, just lesser degree of certainty with assumption?

SA basically makes the argument perfect

NA is something already understood, does not add support for validity of argument?

#help (Added by Admin)

Hello, I am interested.

Congrats 🎊