C is incorrect because the coach isn't applying a generalization about professionals onto their own team. That would be saying something like "If professional baseball players do it, so can we." The coach is essentially saying, "the professionals are MORE effusive than we are." It's not a generalization if the behavior is not the same.

D is incorrect because the coach is not shifting the blame from their team to the professionals.

Even if you interpret the stimulus to mean that "We can't be acting unprofessional because we act in ways similar to professionals," the main flaw here is two different uses of the word "professional." To act professional is to act in a sportsmanlike/respectful/composed manner. To BE a professional is to be paid to do the sport, at the highest level. Professionals can act unprofessionally, in all professions, and often do.

A is a trap answer choice. I think the reason why many people chose A, myself included at first, is because we read the stimulus and thought the stimulus was making an assumption that deep tilling CAUSES topsoil erosion without considering that topsoil might CAUSE farmers to deep till as an intervention.

But the stimulus never actually assumes this. When we are told that "deep tilling is even more deleterious than previously believed," this is all the information we need to conclude that deep tilling IS deleterious. So there is no flawed reasoning. We can safely conclude that deep tilling is BAD for topsoil erosion.

Additionally, even if this flaw of confusing cause for effect were present, "Topsoil erosion does not make farmers want to till more deeply" is NOT the same as "Farmers that till more deeply would experience even worse topsoil erosion if they didn't use deep tilling methods." The former statement isn't a necessary assumption; it's masquerading as one.

You could logically infer that MOST of her oil paintings are not abstract works, but not all.

1. All her oil paintings are highly original (negated, highly original → oil painting)

2. Because we know "few" of her abstract work demonstrates much originality, we know most of her abstract art is NOT highly original ( abstract ‑m→ highly original)

Which, put together, you can logically infer abstract ‑m→ highly original → oil painting

i added an explanation in the comments if its helpful!

just added my explanation!

just added my explanation. hope it helps!

Here is the difference between B and C:

B is saying the two parties disagree over whether the SHIP is in danger or peril (i.e. ACTIVELY drowning) while C is saying the two parties disagree over whether the TREASURE HUNTER is in danger (i.e. risking their life to find treasure, independent of the ship's status).

The treasure hunter uses maritime law to justify their position: "People who risk their lives to rescue a ship in peril are permitted to keep whatever cargo they can salvage." Notice there are two dimensions to this premise––the PERSON must risk their life, and the SHIP must be in peril.

When the archaeologist says "These shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries they have lain underwater," they are saying the SHIP is no longer in peril because it has already drowned. This is the point of disagreement. This is why B is correct.

C is incorrect because the archaeologist never comments on whether the treasure hunter is in danger.

I'm late to this but given there are no explanations for this section I figure I would add my two cents: E is incorrect because it is describing the historians' attitudes towards the laws themselves which is the wrong focus. The passage only addresses how the legal and labor historians describe British feminists' interpretation/oppositions to the laws. The passage does NOT cover how these historians feel about the laws themselves.

Another way to think about it is this: What if someone admits to a flaw they consider to be serious, even when this causes them psychological discomfort? We can't rule that out as a possibility based solely on the premises, because all that the premises tell us is when people experience little psychological discomfort.

We know from the premises that people experience little psychological discomfort admitting their character flaws only when those flaws are trivial

LPD → TRIVIAL

While the conclusion is saying that in order to readily admit to flaws, those flaws must be trivial (not serious).

READILY ADMIT → TRIVIAL

In order to make this argument valid, we need to connect the premises to the conclusion somehow. That would be READILY ADMIT → LPD → TRIVIAL

D states READILY ADMIT → TRIVIAL. If this were not true, it would wreck the argument. This is the missing link that makes the argument valid.

I think B is correct because it strengthens the argument by introducing another reason individuals might have bought broadsides––for the sensationalized accounts of crime and adultery. Maybe they liked reading about these sensationalized accounts because of the immorality they dealt with. The moralizing language only being in a single stanza "tacked on" also implies that the majority of the content of these broadsides were not moral in nature.

This is exactly why I ruled out E. Not all 45 opera companies needed to be established as a result of enthusiasm in order for the argument to be true. a

I think another reason why E is incorrect is because the stimulus doesn't suggest that Tyler and Simon disagree over whether Roseville would have expended $4M. Tyler is saying that they would have saved $4M in actual dollars, whereas Simon is saying they wouldn't have saved $$ when inflation is taken into account. Tyler never responds to or remarks on the point about underutilization Simon makes.

There's no language in the stimulus that suggests the author is arguing that paying "full price" is the only solution to the problem. For A to be correct, the language would need to be stronger and directly state/imply that paying full price is the only solution (e.g.: "must," "the only").

The first time I took this question, was torn between two answers and I chose E instead of D. It wasn't immediately obvious to me why E was incorrect and I don't think this explanation video correctly identifies why it's wrong.

Another reason why E is incorrect is because the conclusion is forecasting something about the future. The stimulus is making more of a descriptive conclusion based on the premises. Whether the book is by Deerson or Jones is certain/fixed, even if Rose is uncertain. Similarly, Margarethe's ancestry is also certain/fixed. But whether Tomas will enroll in community service is NOT certain/fixed, even if the language and structure of E parallels that of the stimulus.

"All degradable plastics, which are potentially useful packaging materials" implies that all degradable plastics are potentially useful packaging materials. (X → Y)

"Some degradable plastics leave residues of unknown toxicity" (X ←s→ Z)

Together, we can infer Y ←s→ Z which is what A states. That's why A is correct.

C is correct because Leggett is "shifting the perspective" by adding an additional scenario (no full-sized cars at all)

D is incorrect because Leggett doesn't refute that generalization made by McBride is accurate or true, but rather incomplete (doesn't consider no full-sized cars at all)

Got the correct answer, but I can't help but imagine a world where D is the correct answer because Hampton does not explicitly deny that human beings won't increase the percentage of the world's land now devoted to agriculture. Hampton only says that humans won't significantly increase the percentage of the world's land now devoted to agriculture.

I know D is not a strong answer and I know B is correct, but if B were not an answer choice, D wouldn't strike me as being explicitly incorrect; it seems that D is vague enough to be correct compared to the other incorrect answers.

Got this one correct but spent a bit too long deciding between C and E, because I didn't fully comprehend the distinction E was making.

Neil is saying a single instance disproves that Koolairs are the best (C). Neil is not saying that because his Koolair needed repairs, all Koolairs need repairs (E).

Q14: I guessed B because all the other answers seemed wrong, but I had absolutely no clue the difference between a thermostat and a thermometer before blind review.

A thermostat affects/influences temperature, while a thermometer merely reflects temperature, which is analogous to the passages. I may be oversimplifying, but it helps to understand the passages this way:

Passage A: Markets are distinct and powerful in their efficiency. In other words, markets can affect/influence people.

Passage B: There is nothing special about markets, they just reflect the majority opinion at any given point in time. In other words, people affect/influence markets.

Same. Totally misread the question before Blind Review

Both passages have a clear point of view. E becomes the obvious answer choice based on the following excerpts:

Passage A: Basically all of paragraph one suggests that the author is advocating for markets as a particular type of information gathering institution. The use of the phrase "amazing" efficiency suggests a point of view.

Passage B: Again, basically all of the first paragraph, specifically the line: "I suggest people should get over it. That's pretty strong language, and this author goes on to "deflate" the belief that markets are infallible.

C is incorrect because passage A does not really "present" and passage B does not really "interpret." They do more than this.

Also, C is incorrect because it does not have to be true. C could strengthen the argument, but it doesn’t have to be true. Additionally, we don’t know whether this “change” C is mentioning is positive or negative. What if the "changes" make the relationship worse?

One thing I don't think he covers in the explanation video here that makes it much easier to answer this question is inference-making from "some" and "most" relationships.

The premises can be written as...

"Stress is a common cause of HBP" (all we know is that stress causes HBP for some people)

Stress ←s→ HBP

and

Exercise ‑m→ Calm → Reduce Stress ←s→ Lower Blood Pressure

E becomes the obvious correct answer because it states that

E ←s→ Reduce Stress, which is an inference you can make from Exercise ‑m→ Calm → Reduce Stress

I don't see any written explanation explaining why E is not correct, so here is my interpretation:

I was stuck between D and E. I chose E when timed and quickly realized D was correct during blind review.

The question stem is asking us to identify how Engle is interpreting McKinley's remarks. E is incorrect because this answer choice is identifying Engle's interpretation, not McKinley's. Engle's misinterpreted McKinley's remarks to mean that the various "effects" refer to the drug's efficacy, rather than its side effects. So Engle is the one who is "confused," not McKinley.