Who knew that these two flawed arguments would be sufficiently parallel?
1. A ←s→ B —m→ C. Thus, A ←s→ C
2. A ←s→ B ←s→ C. Thus, A ←s→ C
Not me. Yes, a most statement can become a some statement... but it's still different.
Not being able to quickly eliminate ACs that do things as egregious as mistaking a "some" for a "most" statement would really slow me down, I think. I wonder if I should pretend like I never saw this question, since most Parallel Flaw questions won't be this weird? I'd be guaranteed to get the weird ones wrong, sure, but I'd be much faster on the more common regular ones.
If A —M→ B, an A is likely to be a B, but a B isn't necessarily likely to be an A. We know nothing about the likelihood of a B to be an A, except that it’s non-zero if there's at least one A.
Greater than 50% chance: Likely, probably, usually, tends to, and generally
Less than 50% chance: Unlikely, improbable, few, rarely, uncommonly, infrequently
How do we know that his confidence in the report's accuracy stems from his own analysis? Maybe his trusted, infallible advisor, who took her time reading it, sang its praises.
I'm generally finding it hard to know when information is appropriately or inappropriately "taken for granted." We're supposed to assume the premises are true, so why do we disbelieve the commissioner when he says the report is undoubtedly accurate?
#help
I disagree with JY; I think the conclusion is "we should put out the poison," while "the poison won't threaten the owls" is merely a subsidiary conclusion.
So, what if there was an answer choice that said this strategy would kill half the species in the forest, but it'd do no harm to the owls? Wouldn't that dissuade someone from putting out the poison, thus weakening the argument? I know I'm not supposed to bring my personal values into the argument, but can't we assume some sort of valuation of life? JY said that the deaths don't matter unless it's hurting the owls. That seems narrow.
That said, I got this right since I dismissed A on the grounds that it doesn't really introduce any new information. It was already a safe bet that a lot of other wildlife would be killed. And if an answer choice doesn't add new information, it can't weaken the argument.
#help
We're never told whether anyone else is in the room with the parents while they're singing the infant-less recording. Thus, we don't know if C is even applicable to these experiments, and so it cannot strengthen.
The stimulus makes clear that Robbins doesn't have a full understanding of Stuart's art. So why can't the assumption be Judgment -> Full Understanding, rather than Judgment -> Praise or Dismiss?
Is it because we must make all parts of the stimulus supportive of the conclusion? That doesn't sound right to me. Just because something is in the stimulus doesn't necessarily mean it's a premise.
#help (Added by Admin)
Everyone's different, but I take a game repeatedly until I perfect it. Then I wait a day. If I can do it perfectly again, I wait a week. If I can then ace it a third time, I'm done with it. If I do it imperfectly at any point, it all restarts. My PT average is a 173.
Alvaro distinguishes between two types of overhauls: those which properly recode, and those which don’t. Michele doesn't draw that distinction.
Even so, it's possible that Michele accepts this distinction, it’s just that she doesn’t have confidence that the company can perform the successful kind of overhaul, so it's not worth bringing up the distinction at all. Therefore, this is not necessarily the point at issue, and so D is wrong.
If a set of facts is said to illustrate a principle, then that principle must apply to the world at large, not just that set of facts.
In other words: Since A always leads to B in those facts, you can’t then say that illustrates the principle that A → B. But it does illustrate that A can lead to B.
Same goes for when the stem substitutes “principles” for “generalizations.”
I initially chose C. I think it slightly strengthens Lydia's argument by establishing that squirrels opt for trees with relatively (but not much) more sugar. However, we're not supposed to strengthen Lydia's argument; we're supposed to weaken Galina's!
Hector's conclusion could still be valid even if the public does not in fact benefit from the sculpture. Indeed, Hector might pragmatically concede that it's unknowable whether the public benefits, but regardless we must resort to the best metric available: public opinion. Thus, negative public opinion should prompt action, whether or not the public is correct about the benefit of the sculpture. So E isn't a necessary assumption, right?
Passage A recounts other people's argument that truth-telling is superior to lying on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. By doing so, doesn't the passage help answer the question of whether "the costs of judicial candor outweigh the benefits?" I don't know how JY eliminated #14E so quickly.
I know the author disagrees with that argument, but by recounting it, the author intentionally sheds light on the question of, if we were to do a cost-benefit analysis, which side would come out on top.
If a set of facts is said to illustrate a principle, then that principle must apply to the world at large, not just that set of facts. In other words, since A always leads to B in a given set of facts, you can’t say that illustrates the principle that A → B. But you can conclude that A can lead to B.
Argument Flaw: Invoking or establishing a principle while arguing, and then hypocritically violating that principle while still arguing, such that the two arguments cannot both be true.
If the invoked principle declares that an act is bad, it is flawed to then engage in that act while still arguing; this demonstrates incompatible stances on the veracity of that principle.
This is distinct from establishing a principle while arguing and then acting in violation of that principle when not arguing. In that case, you could very well still believe in the truth of that principle. Your personal actions are not relevant to your substantive argument for that principle. However, if you then make a substantive argument that contravenes the principle, you’ve made two logically inconsistent arguments, and that’s a flaw.
If you've drilled a problem multiple times, you can hover over the recycling icon on the "review results" page and see what answer you chose on each take. This is helpful, but it'd be better if it also displayed how long you spent on that question for every take. That way, I'd be able to finely track timing improvements on specific questions while, say, foolproofing a logic game. Thank you!
An observation: an association is not necessarily a correlation. We don't know that /success is correlated with /concern, since 99% of the time there's /concern, it could be during success.
Answer choice C weakens the argument, but certainly does not kill it. Even if the percentage of dropouts decreased, they could still contribute a “substantial” source of recruitment in absolute terms. The conclusion could still be valid.