Umm... I got this wrong cuz I interpreted Often = Most
Cause : BIOLOGICAL DISPOSITION to pay more attention to 8th 5th n 4th intervals
Effect : Babies paid more attention to 8th 5th n 4th intervals
Strengthening Causation Logic: A/D is irrelevant A/C; doesn't touch on the idea of causation.
B) None of the babies in the experiment had previous exposure to music from any culture.
Correct : Eliminate an Alternative Cause
C) All of the babies in the experiment had been exposed to music drawn equally from a wide variety of cultures around the world.
Incorrect : Bring in Alternative Cause
E) Octaves, fifths, and fourths were played more frequently during the experiment than other musical intervals were.
Incorrect : Bring in Alternative Cause
I make a reply because someone might engage in similar confusion as mine with the AC (B). It is not drawing an "analogy" between an attitude(doubt) commonly adopted in one situation and a different attitude(utmost respect) commonly adapted in another situation. Analogy does not operate like that. If there are two different attitudes regarding similar situation confronted, then it is not analogy anymore, by definition. Also, another consideration lies on the "latter" part since the writer is following the initial attitude, not the latter part.
When there is a premise saying A cause B, For example.
A.
Premise(1): A Cause B
Premise(2). There is B
Conclusion: There is A
Is this a valid way of reasoning?
B. This is valid reasoning, right?
Premise(1): A Cause B
Premise(2). There is A
Conclusion: There is B
Another Way of Interpreting this Question:
Sub conclusion:
(Person being prevented from sleeping solely by such thoughts) can fall asleep by closing the eyes and counting sheep
Conclusion: Person can use counting imaginary sheep as an effective method of inducing sleep (=can fall asleep by closing the eyes and counting sheep)
* This Person -> Person being prevented from sleeping only by such thoughts
Other than such thought -> /prevent sleeping
(C) Thoughts of sheep(Other than such thought) would not keep the person
awake at that time (=/prevent sleeping)
My Question Regarding This Question. I think AC (D) is a clearly better option, but does not wanna say that this is MBF answer.
The question stem implies that there are several reasons what makes a music piece to have a strong influence throughout the world, and to be a sophisticated achievement.
"One" of those reasons is a musical piece being able to stand alone even if it deviates from the original function.
So, this could be expressed as,
"being able to stand alone even if it deviates from the original function. -> makes a music piece to have a strong influence throughout the world, and to be a sophisticated achievement"
In case of AC(D), it says the musical piece is not intelligible if it deviates from the original function. This could be expressed as
(1) Deviates from the Original Function -> Not Intelligible
(2) Deviates from the Original Function -> Cannot Stand Alone.
Here, I think we can make a slight gap from not being intelligible to not being able to stand alone. Thus, Music -> Cannot Stand Alone.
Until this point, I feel it is quite logical. However, no one says that if it cannot stand alone -> it is not a sophisticated achievement.
This was only something that have been told:
"being able to stand alone even if it deviates from the original function. -> makes a music piece to have a strong influence throughout the world, and to be a sophisticated achievement"
Under the restrictions above, there might be another reason what makes this piece a sophisticated achievement, or the most sophisticated achievement, even.
So, If the author did not mention:
To make a music piece to have a strong influence throughout the world, and to be a sophisticated achievement then the music should be able to stand alone even if it deviates from the original function.
I think AC (D) may not be a MBF. Any opinions?
I think I am confused with causal argument and conditionality.
I felt when causal argument has something to do with explanation, giving explanation/hypothesis in the conclusion. Then, there is some kind of bi conditional relationship between cause and effect. (if there is a cause there must be effect, if there is a effect, there must be cause, and there is no alternative explanation)
However, if there is a premise describing a causal relationship, would it be okay to think that there is bi conditional relationship between cause and effect? I feel like there is only one way relationship. Cause being the sufficient condition and Effect being the necessary condition.
Plz Comment. I am using this idea when I am doing questions. I am still unsure.
My explanation is a little off from J.Ys. I thought that although the premise says some political strategists adopted advertiser's strategy, it doesn't tell that was effective. I think there the assumption lies. Still, (E) is the answer choice addressing such gap.
N.A Defender Type Answer Choices and Strengthen Eliminating the Weakness Answer Choices
I somehow feel that those two answer choices are very similar. Does anyone here have opinion on how those two answer choices differ? Those question types are both assumption type questions, and I assume that is why I feel those two are from similar (not the same) grounds.
For example, this is an made up argument but...
Assumption: This september, there are more people coming to watch movie in theatre A.
Conclusion: Therefore, theatre A would collect more profit this month.
Strengthen (Eliminating the Weakness AC) and NA AC could be both something like the theatre did not offer large price discount this September.
I chose (B). I did so cuz I didn't make the distinction between flash pasteurization and intensive pasteurization. I thought the apple juice was already using intensive pasteurization technique, and thus concluded that apple juice was more free from bacteria as compared to the citrus juice. Stupid Me :(
Effect (Premise): Five species of coral in the bay, including the mounds that existed for 200 years died.
Cause(Conclusion): Therefore, the blackwater incident was more serious and intense than before.
Answer Choice (D): (Defender AC) the mounds that existed for 200 years was "not" weaker last year than before.
Weakener: the mounds that existed for 200 years was weaker last year than before. (Alternative Explanation); If this is true, then the entire argument falls apart because Causation Logic is destroyed by exploring other sets of alternative explanations.