Researcher: We have found that some cases of high blood pressure can be treated effectively with medicine. Since it is generally accepted that any illness caused by stress is treatable only by the reduction of stress, some cases of high blood pressure must not be caused by stress.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the researcher's argument?

D) Some conditions that are treated effectively by medicines are not also treatable through the reduction of stress.

E) Medicine used to treat high blood pressure does not itself reduce stress.

The negation of D seems to me to be "All conditions that are effectively treated by medicines are also treatable through the reduction of stress." While the negation of E is that "Medicine used to treat high blood pressure does itself reduce stress."

In my mind, both of these seem to break the logic of the argument. I understand that E is correct because, having diagrammed it, I understand that a some statement will not suffice and that I need a conditional statement to bridge the gap between the premises and the conclusion. However, the negation test did not allow me to eliminate D, but it is supposedly infallible in determining the correct answer. I am a bit concerned that both D and E seem for me to break the argument. How is it that D does not do that? Or if it does, how do I know to trust the negation test? Is it that the negation of D says that medicine and stress reduction are both separately effective and that E says that the medicine is effective because it reduces the stress? Is the negation of D even applicable, since it would contradict the premise that states that an illness caused by stress can only be treated by a reduction of stress? Thanks

For question 19 of section 3 on the october 2008 test, the stimulus reads: "Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."

Answer choice A reads "An ideal bureaucracy will provide an appeal procedure for complaints even after it has defined and classified all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality."

In negating this answer choice, I believe that the clause "even after it has defined..." all the way to the end remains constant in both the answer choice and its negation. If this is the case, how does it not break the conclusion of the argument that "an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."?

Statement reads:

"Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year."

How would you negate this? Is is better to use one statement that says "Rattlesnakes do not molt exactly once a year" or is it better to split it into two that each say "Rattlesnakes molt less than once a year" and "Rattlesnakes molt at least twice a year"? Or is the first statement logically equivalent to the combination of the second and third? Thanks

An answer choice reads:

"A totalitarian regime can perceive loss of public passivity as a threat to its power."

How would you go about negating this statement, beyond simply saying "It is not the case that..." Is there a general rule for negating statements containing the word "can"? Do we negate it by saying that it becomes "may not" or "will not" or "cannot"?