AC's

• Go into AC's knowing that 4 will be disagree, 1 will be agree or unknown (the answer choice we should choose)

A No - they disagree

McKee would definitely say yes

• "That's why it's unwise for comedy venues to prevent audience members from heckling."

Chapman would likely say no because they do not support heckling.

• In most cases, heckling is just a distraction from the performance.

B No - they disagree

McKee would say yes because they believe that heckling is part of stand up comedy.

• "Heckling the performer is a long-standing tradition of stand-up comedy. The performers know this and learn to respond entertainingly.

Chapman would say no:

• "In most cases, heckling is just a distraction from the performance."

C Yes - unclear positions

This one is tricky because we don't know anything about "the best" stand-up comedians.

McKee would say yes because they say that stand-up performers "know this [heckling...is a long-standing tradition] and learn to respond entertainingly" in general.

Chapman is unclear what their opinion is. We know Chapman thinks the comedians do respond but we don't know if they respond entertainingly.

D No they would disagree

We can translate "many" here to some or 1 or more. So AC-D is "1 or more audience members at comedy venues enjoy watching stand-up comedians respond to heckling."

McKee would likely say yes because heckling is a tradition of stand-up.

Chapman would likely say no because heckling is "usually only fun for the heckler" meaning outside of the heckler, the general audience likely does not enjoy it.

E No they would disagree

McKee would definitely agree - this seems to be almost verbatim McKee's conclusion.

Chapman would disagree because they are not a fan of heckling and view it as a distraction.

Breaking down argument:

Conclusion:

Certain changes in North American residential architecture after World War II are attributable mainly to the increased availability and affordability of air-conditioning.

Premise:

Soon after World War II, many builders found that air-conditioned houses lacking the high ceilings and thick walls that traditionally kept residents cool during extreme heat generally sold well.

Assumption:

AC -cause-> lower ceiling (/ high ceilings) + thin walls (/thick walls)

What if there is another explanation for lower ceiling/thin walls that's not AC?

AC's

A No - this is talking about pre-AC houses, so not relevant to argument. We are talking about what happens to changes in residential architecture (lower ceiling/thin walls) after AC.

B No- even if true, that's fine because our conclusion is not about the cost of anything it's about AC being the reason for residential architectural changes.

C Yes - this weakens the underlying assumption the author is making that because of AC (cause), houses with low ceilings and thin walls began to be developed (effect). If the effect exists even without the cause, it makes the initial cause seem unlikely.

D No - even if true, this is still possible under the logic of the argument. Suppose that the author is right that AC's accessibility caused lower ceiling and thin wall homes to be built more frequently; these new homes may allow AC to escape but that doesn't change the fact that AC's caused those house changes in the first place.

E No - this is a trap answer and attempt to provide an alternate explanation. We could make this reason still work with the stimulus. For example, what if new AC installation requires new thermal-insulating technology to be applied? Then, AC's are still the main reason for the change. Moreover, note that the conclusion said "certain changes...are attributable mainly to...air-conditioning." So even if new thermal-insulating technology was a reason for changes, air conditioning could be the MAIN reason.

Visually representing stimulus:

Typically (-m->), a design that turns out well (WD) have gone through many drafts (MD):

WD -m-> MD

What usually allows a designer to see an idea's advantages and flaws is a sketch of the idea.

SAF-m->S

The ways in which the sketch appears muddled or confused (SMF) tend (-m->) to reveal to the designer ways in which the design has been inadequately conceptualized (DIC):

SMF-m->DIC

Designs that turn out well tend to have drafts (D1, D2, etc.). Each draft tends to have sketches (S1, S2, etc.) which reveal advantages (A) and flaws (F).

Going to AC's:

With MSS questions, we always want a weak answer choice. Anything that is not stated in the stimulus or is too strong should be eliminated.

A No we don't know which designs turn out "best," only those that turn out well. Moreover, even if we were to equate well with best, we also only know that MOST (51%+) designs that turn out well go through MANY (1+) drafts. This means SOME (1+) designs that turn out well may not go through many. We don't have enough information to talk about "best" or even "most drafts."

B Yes. This is really weak and easy to support. "Many good designs have emerged from design ideas that were flawed." Many means 1 or more so we only need 1 good design to emerge from a flawed design idea. Based on the visual representation, this seems probable that there is ONE good design with a first draft that had a flaw that was eventually ironed out by the final draft. Also good is more similar to well than best (AC-A) to well.

C No. We do not know anything about designs that do not turn out well. We only know about what happens typically for designs that turn out well.

D No. The "rarely" here is too strong. How do we know that designs whose initial conceptualization was inadequate do not eventually have those issues ironed out in the drafting process? Moreover, we don't know too much about how designs whose initial conceptualization was inadequate end up; we just know that a muddled or confused sketch can demonstrate an inadequate conceptualization.

E No. The "never" here is too strong. This is saying that /sketch -> /see advantages/flaws

see advantages flaws-> sketch

This is saying that that if you see advantages and flaws you MUST use a sketch. We only know that "What usually allows a designer to see an idea's advantages and flaws is a sketch of the idea" or SAF-m->S, which is not what E is saying.

Breaking down the argument

Premises:

When using a manufactured pattern to make clothing, a tailor alters the pattern to accommodate any future distortion of the fabric.

Also, unless the clothing is to be worn by a person whose measurements precisely match the pattern size, the tailor alters the pattern to fit the wearer exactly.

Conclusion:

Thus, a professional tailor never blindly follows a pattern, but always adjusts the pattern to fit the wearer exactly.

Diagramming:

(I bolded/underlined the matching terms here)

Premises

/person precisely match -> tailor alters pattern to fit wearer exactly

/M->APFWE

Conclusion

professional tailor -> /blindly follows pattern

professional tailor -> adjusts pattern to fit wearer exactly

PT-> /BF

PT-> APFWE

Gap/Linking premises to conclusion

PT->/M->APFWE

AC's

A new term in the conclusion here is professional tailor, so I know that the AC needs to have professional tailor. This allows me to eliminate A and C, which don't have professional tailor in the AC.

A No, for reason stated above.

B No, this is too weak.

This would diagram to:

/M->APFW<-s->PT whereas we need PT-> /M

C No, for reason stated earlier.

D Yes

PT-> /M is what we are missing and AC-D gives us that.

E No, we don't care about fabric shrinking or stretching.

Breaking down the argument:

Premises:

While ocean stickleback are covered with armor to protect them from their predators, lake stickleback have virtually no armor.

Since armor limits the speed of a stickleback's growth,

Conclusion: this indicates that having a larger size is a better defense against the lake stickleback's predators than having armor.

Visually represented here:

Gaps in Argument

• Ocean fish is smaller than lake fish because of armor

• Ocean fish uses armor to protect from predators

• Conclusion that lake fish's larger size (and no armor) helps protect from predators

• Assumption that lake fish's larger size (and no armor) helps the lake fish just as the smaller size (and armor) helps the ocean fish

• But what if there is another reason for the lake fish's larger size, unrelated to protecting from predators?

Going into AC's

A No - Even if this is true, it only pertains to ocean sticklebacks. Our argument is concerned with larger size (and no armor) lake sticklebacks.

If anything, this would strengthen the argument by providing a reason for why larger size (and no armor) is a better defense for lake sticklebacks.

B Yes - This provides an alternate hypothesis for why lake stickleback are so large. Perhaps it has nothing to do with predators and instead has to do with survival of cold winters.

C No - This AC could still be true under the logic of the stimulus. For example, if the predatory insects are larger than lake stickleback, then perhaps a larger size could still be "a better defense against the lake stickleback's predators than having armor." If the predatory insects are smaller than lake stickleback, a larger size lake stickleback could more effectively eat predator insects than a smaller lake stickleback.

D No - This affects both lake and ocean stickleback the same whereas we want something to be different about ocean and lake sticklebacks.

E No - This is unrelated to the argument. It just provides background information for how lake sticklebacks came to be now in both ocean and lakes.

1: Why is each conclusion vulnerable to criticism?

i) 5.8 is the most dangerous climbing grade in Eldo.

Just because 5.8 routes have the greatest proportion of climbing accidents doesn't meant they are the most dangerous. Proportion of accidents does not necessarily equal danger. For instance, 5.13 routes could actually be the most dangerous/lethal due to their level of difficulty, which is actually why the number of accidents is quite small (1%), since everyone who climbs knows how dangerous those routes are and aims to avoid them.

ii) Most accidents on 5.8 routes in Eldo are a result of leader falls.

46% of frequent accident types are due to a leader fall. However, just because 5.8 routes are where the most number of accidents have taken place does not equate to the most frequent accident types. For instance, the 46% of leader fall accidents could be spread equally amongst the remaining 8 routes or just among routes 5.8-5.10.

2: For each conclusion, what fact, if true, would undermine that conclusion?

i) 5.8 is the most dangerous climbing grade in Eldo.

While accidents on 5.8 routes typically result in minor hand sprains that can be treated at home, accidents on 5.9 routes and above mostly lead to hospitalization and surgery.

ii) Most accidents on 5.8 routes in Eldo are a result of leader falls.

Leader falls typically only occur on lower level routes (5.7 and below) since leader falls are caused by leaders being inadequately trained and ill prepared.

3: For each conclusion, what fact, if true, would support that conclusion?

i) 5.8 is the most dangerous climbing grade in Eldo.

5.8 routes tend to be the least consistently repaired compared to other routes, making the likelihood of injury more likely.

ii) Most accidents on 5.8 routes in Eldo are a result of leader falls.

Beginners are most likely to start with the 5.8 route as their first climb. When beginners try being leaders, they often fall due to tension and anxiety about their first climb.

4: For each conclusion, what question, if true, would help us determine the truth of that conclusion?

i) 5.8 is the most dangerous climbing grade in Eldo.

What is the rate of fatality/hospitalization for accidents at each route grade?

ii) Most accidents on 5.8 routes in Eldo are a result of leader falls.

To what extent are leader falls related to route grade number?

5: For each conclusion, what is an assumption required for that conclusion to follow from the information in the photo?

i) 5.8 is the most dangerous climbing grade in Eldo.

It is not the case that 5.12 routes are the most fatal for climbers.

ii) Most accidents on 5.8 routes in Eldo are a result of leader falls.

Most accidents on 5.8 routes in Eldo are not the result of unroped and solo falls.

6: For each conclusion, what assumption would allow that conclusion to be properly inferred from the information in the photo?

i) 5.8 is the most dangerous climbing grade in Eldo.

If a route grade has the highest proportion/number of accidents, then it is the most dangerous climbing grade in Eldo.

ii) Most accidents on 5.8 routes in Eldo are a result of leader falls.

If most accidents in Eldo have a cause, then most accidents on 5.8 routes will have that same cause.

Argument Analysis:

Kira:

Conclusion

It would be unwise for you to buy that insurance policy.

Premise

It's designed to make money for the company that sells it to you. They set the prices to ensure profits.

Binh:

Premise:

Undeniably, the insurer is in business to make money.

Conclusion:

But the mere fact that an insurer draws a profit in no way implies that buying one of its policies is unwise.

Prephrase:

Binh is conceding to Kira's premise that insurers' business is to make money ("undeniably"). However, Binh reaches a different conclusion, just because Kira's premises may be true ("But the mere fact that an insurer draws a profit") does not mean that Kira's conclusion is true ("no way implies that buying one of its policies is unwise.")

---

AC's

A No - There is no new "fact" that Binh introduces.

B No- Binh actually concedes to Kira's premises, not denying them.

C No- The first part of the AC

arguing that Kira's premises are not only inadequate to prove her conclusion

is true. However, the second is not:

but in fact point strongly toward its being false

This is too strong. For it to be true, the stimulus would need to say instead, "But the mere fact that an insurer draws a profit makes it not unwise (wise) to buy that insurance policy."

D Yes this has a better tone and makes it the better choice over C.

Binh concedes Kira's premises without denying her conclusion ("Undeniably, the insurer is in business to make money.") , while asserting that the latter does not follow ("in no way implies that buying one of its policies is unwise") from the former ("But the mere fact that an insurer draws a profit.").

E No Binh never says the premises contradict one another.

Parallel Flaw

Stimulus

Premises

Usually when I insert a dollar bill into the change machine at the office it makes a squeaking sound before it produces change.

But the machine can make the sound only when the electric outlet it is plugged into is turned on.

Conclusion: Therefore, it must be that the electric outlet usually is turned on.

-----

Diagramming Stimulus

ISB= insert a dollar bill

SS= squeaking sound

EOTO= electric outlet is turned on

PC= produces change

Premises

ISB -m-> SS

PC-> SS-> EOTO

Invalid Conclusion

???-m->EOTO

Therefore [all of the time], it must be that the electric outlet usually is turned on.

Valid Conclusions

ISB -m-> SS-> EOTO

When I enter a dollar bill, the electric outlet is usually turned on.

---

AC's

Can easily eliminate (A), (B), (C) because there needs to be a most component to the conclusion, re: "usually" in the stimulus conclusion.

A No - says "everyone" in conclusion

B No- says "some people"

C No- says "many of the people" aka some

D Yes

Diagram

RNH= read new horror novel

PD= plot disturbing

VI= vivid imagination

P=people

Premises

RNH-m-> PD

/VI-> /PD

PD->VI

Invalid Conclusion

P-m->VI

Most people have vivid imaginations.

Valid Conclusion

RNH-m->PD->VI or RNH-m->VI

Most people who read the new horror novel must have vivid imaginations.

D is correct (over E) because it makes a jump (instead of the valid conclusion that most people who read the new horror novel) to an invalid conclusion (most people). Note that this is similar to the stimulus where there was a jump to an invalid conclusion: Therefore [all of the time], it must be that the electric outlet usually is turned on, instead of the valid conclusion (When I enter a dollar bill, the electric outlet is usually turned on.).

------

E No

Diagram

RNH= read new horror novel

PD= plot disturbing

VI= vivid imagination

P=people with vivid imaginations

Premises

RNH-m->PD

/VI-> /PD

PD->VI

Invalid Conclusion

PVI-m->PD

Most people with vivid imaginations must find the plot disturbing.

Valid Conclusion

RNH-m->PD->VI or RNH-m->VI

Most people who read the new horror novel must have vivid imaginations.

E is incorrect because it makes a jump (instead of the valid conclusion that most people who read the new horror novel) to an invalid conclusion (most people with vivid imaginations). Note that this is different from the stimulus.

If E were the correct parallel flaw, then the stimulus would need to say in the conclusion usually when the electric outlet is turned on, it makes a squeaking sound.

ISB -m-> SS

PC-> SS

SS-> EOTO

Invalid Conclusion

EOTO-m->SS

Argument - parallel reasoning

Conclusion:

It is pointless to spend much time trying to match an old paint precisely when repainting only part of the interior of a house.

Premises:

This is because paint fades somewhat in the months after it has been applied. Thus, even if a new paint matches the old during application, the two paints will no longer match after a year or so.

Summary:

There is no point in making a lot of effort (match an old paint precisely) because over time, the results of your effort will fade (two paints will no longer match after a year or so).

----

AC's

A Yes

There is no point in making a lot of effort (it is useless to put very much effort into perfectly aligning a new wheel) because over time, the results of your effort will fade (the position of a bike wheel always shifts a bit when the bike is ridden).

-----

B No - Premise here doesn't match the premise in the stimulus. Also, this AC talks about making a choice (new car) over another (restoring an older car) whereas the stimulus is only concerned with your once decision (matching an old paint precisely).

If B were parallel, there is no point in making a lot of effort (it is rarely worthwhile to look for parts for an older car) because over time, the results of your effort will fade (older car parts are being incinerated every day and the longer you look, the less pieces are available).

----

C No - Premise and conclusion here don't match the premise and conclusion in the stimulus.

If C were parallel, there is no point in making a lot of effort (it is pointless to shampoo to keep your hair healthy) because over time, the results of your effort will fade (the more your hair is consistently shampooed, the more it will become damaged over time).

----

E No - Premise/conclusion here doesn't match the premise/conclusion in the stimulus. AC-D is comparing cookies with butter and cookies with margarine when stimulus is concerned with one decision (matching an old paint precisely).

If D were parallel, there is no point in making a lot of effort (it is pointless to spend the extra money needed to buy butter for cookies) because over time, the results of your effort will fade (the more butter you use in your cookies, the worse they will taste).

-----

E No - Premise here doesn't match the premise in the stimulus. AC-E is saying something is not worthwhile because most people would not even notice the issue to begin with. The stimulus is not concerned with what other people/most people think.

If E were parallel, there is no point in making a lot of effort (it is not worthwhile when making a dress to spend much time attempting to match a dress and its lining perfectly) because over time, the results of your effort will fade (the more time you spend attempting to match a dress and its lining perfectly, the less time you have to devote to the other parts of the dress, which are more important).

Important info from stimulus:

• 6 med students were each separately presented with same patient

• Attending 1:

  • "What tests should we order to try to rule out diagnosis of X?" where X was filled in with a different medical condition for each student

    • i.e. (appendicitis, food poisoning, anxiety, stomach ache)

• Patient with similar symptoms/ Attending 2:

  • Diagnosis? no leading q's

  • Each student began testing their version of X

------------

AC's

A Yes - because X is different for each student (see underlined /examples above).

B No - we don't have any info on what the medical students know or don't know. Also B is essentially saying only one of the medical students. What about two? or three?

C No - we don't know. Maybe they were aware and maybe they weren't.

D No - what if they all tested for conditions that did not cause the patient's symptoms?

E No- we don't know what they are or are not aware of.

Argument:

Conclusion

I feel confident in concluding that this will be a good year for us in terms of sales.

Premises

In each of the last 5 years, our monthly sales average was less than $30 million. However, our monthly sales average so far for this year is over $35 million.

Gap in argument:

"While we only have the sales reports for the first 9 months of this year"

So what about the last three months of the year? What if the company sells horribly such that the gains from the >$35 million a month is lost?

----

AC's

A Yes - addresses the gap such that the worst case scenario mentioned above will likely not happen.

B No - even if true, what if the scenario in the gap above happens?

C No - if anything, weakens argument because it means there could be bad news on the horizon.

D No - even if true, what about the last three months?

E No - see answers to B and D.

AC's

I use the

1) Read Passage A

2) Round 1: Eliminate AC's / answer q's that I can

3) Read passage B

4) Round 2: Go through unanswered q's and answer/ double check any from passage A unsure

-------

A No - does not fit passage A (eliminate round 1.)

Passage A presents examples of Spanish and German that picture reality in incompatible ways.

P3:

When speakers were asked about the characteristics of various objects, Spanish speakers deemed bridges, clocks, and violins to have stereotypically masculine properties like strength, but Germans tended to think of them as more slender or elegant.

-----

B No does not fit Passage B (would eliminate in round 2.)

Passage A potentially captures.

Passage B is about how language influences numerical reasoning, not grammar.

------

C No does not fit Passage A (eliminate in round 1)

Passage A does not say that linguistic differences make "mutual understanding impossible." Too strong of a word here.

Instead, Passage A suggests that it can shape emotions towards objects:

Furthermore, grammatical genders can shape the feelings and associations that speakers have toward objects around them

-----

D - No - does not accurately depict Passage A (eliminate in round 1)

Passage A P2

Whorf’s main mistake was to assume that our mother tongue prevents us from being able to think certain thoughts; new research suggests that in reality its influence consists in what it obliges us to think about. German, for example, forces me to designate my neighbor as male (Nachbar) or female (Nachbarin).

For Passage A, then, the author would likely argue that conceptual differences (obliges us to think about) arise from linguistic differences (German v Spanish).

----

E- Yes matches both Passage A and B.

Passage A: differences in people's subjective associations with gender/objects

Evidence is the entirety of passage 3

Passage B: possession of concepts regarding numerical concepts

Going through AC's:

A- No - a tricky trap answer! This seems like it would superficially support a commercial application of Belcher and Hu's research. However, AC-A is supporting the "much current research...aimed at harnessing DNA to this end" (end of P1). As that sentence reminds us, "chemist Angela Belcher and physicist Evelyn Hu are investigating a different molecular pattern maker: peptides, amino acid chains that are shorter than proteins."

------

B- Yes

From p1: computer chips made up of transistors

P2: transistors made of semiconductors, which are bound/directed by peptides

P2: "if they found peptides able to direct the crystal growth of the semiconductor materials that form transistors, they might have a tool for building nanoscale electronics...So Belcher, Hu, and their colleagues grew a random assortment of one billion different peptides and tested whether any of them bound to silicon, gallium arsenide, or indium phosphide crystals—three widely used semiconductor materials."

and P3: "As they have expanded their targets to 20 more semiconductor materials"

So they went from 3 semiconductors (P2) to 20 (P3). AC-B says there could be even more semiconductor materials that could replace any of those Belcher and Hu have found. This would make it easier to create different transistors and thereby computer chips.

-----

C- No. It is not totally clear how this would affect the commercial application ie those that can bind to two vs those that can bind to both at the same time. Moreover, even at a more generous reading, I would argue that based on the info in the last paragraph, this may hurt the argument.

P3 says "They are also designing new peptides that bind to two different crystals at once, acting as a daub of glue. It will take that kind of finesse at the nanoscale to produce self-assembling circuits."

If there are not as many that bind to two, then we will not have that kind of finessee at the nanoscale to produce self-assembling circuits (commercial application).

------

D- No. This seems to suggest that their research quantity of peptides is decreasing, which would likely make commercial application more difficult.

E- No this seems to be a reason to suggest that commercial application would not happen if the costs are too prohibitive.

Breaking down the argument:

Conclusion:

The rise of book megastores in the 1990s increased sales of best-sellers, but decreased sales of less commercial, more literary books.

Premises:

In 1986, best-selling hardcover titles accounted for about 7 percent of all hardcover sales. By 1996, that figure had nearly doubled. Megastores can offer deeper discounts than independent stores and offer their biggest discounts on best-selling hardcovers, which discourages sales of other hardcovers.

Visually:

Gaps

There is an assumption that the jump from 7% (1986) to ~14% (1996) in best selling hardcover sales as a percentage of total hardcover sales is because of increased cases of best-sellers and decreased sales of less commercial, more literary books.

But, what if there was another reason? Suppose that the pie of hardcover sales overall was shrinking and the reason for the change.

For example, what if in 1986, 7 of the best selling hard cover books were sold out of the 100 hard cover books total. (7/100 or 7%) Suppose that megastores shut down all the local bookstores and thus the total number of hardcovers was less. What if in 1996, there were only 50 hard cover books total and the best selling hard cover books remained the same? Then 7 of the best selling hard cover books were sold out of the 50 hard cover books total (7/50 or 14%). Thus, the increase in percentage from 1986 to 1996 could be attributable to less overall hardcover books.

----

AC's

A No - This would strengthen the argument by giving additional evidence for bookstores increasing the sales of best-sellers via a best-seller list.

B No - This would be another strengthener by providing a reason for best-selling hardcover titles to double. This says that bookstore customers are more likely to support best selling authors (than less commercial, more literary books).

C Yes. This gives a reason for the scenario I sketched above. The total pie of hardcover books is shrinking, not the sales of best-selling hardcovers themselves.

D No. This is unclear how it affects the argument. If there are more titles, what kind of titles? Best-selling? Hardcover? Literary? Suppose that they are hardcover books:

Then from our example above in 1986 if there were 100 total hard cover books

In 1996, there would be 120. And then? we can conclude nothing because we don't know which of those are even best-selling hardcover.

E No this strengthens the argument by providing another reason that book megastores would increase sales of best-sellers and decrease sales of less commercial, more literary books.

Breaking down argument:

Premises:

Premise 1: Last year, many polls found that most people in our country claimed to be tired of television news programs' obsession with celebrity scandals and to be unwilling to watch such programs.

i.e. Polls found 60% of people tired of TV obsession celebrity gossip and said they wouldn't watch it.

Premise 2: But at the same time, ratings of television news shows soared.

i.e. TV news viewership went up 33%.

Conclusion:

This indicates that when responding to polls, whether or not they are aware of it, people often portray themselves as they wish to be perceived, rather than as they actually are.

-----

Prephrase/Gap in Argument:

The new words introduced in conclusion are bolded above. The author views premise 1 (or being tired of tv program gossip) as equivalent to "people often portray themselves as they wish to be perceived" and premise 2 (or TV viewership soaring) as equivalent to "as they actually are."

----

AC's - Also remember that NA are MBT statements. When negating AC's in NA questions, it should wreck the argument. If it doesn't, then it is not the NA.

A No. We don't need EVERYONE to meet premise 1. Also AC-A is linking premise 1 to itself, not to the conclusion, so easy to eliminate here.

If we were to negate AC-A (remember that negate all is some are not), "Last year, some in the editorialist's country who claimed in polls to be tired of television news programs' obsession with celebrity scandals also did not claim to be unwilling to watch such programs."

The argument actually accounts for this because it says "many polls found that most" so it's okay for AC-A to be negated and some to disagree.

If you apply the negation test and the AC supports/strengthens the argument, automatic elimination.

B No. First of all, what is almost everyone? 99.9999%? 95? 90%? 80%? I would say a lot of my issues with AC-A apply here as well.

But let's suppose almost everyone is 95%. Not almost everyone would include 94%. So AC-B negated says "Last year, 94% of people who claimed in polls to be tired of television news programs' obsession with celebrity scandals and to be unwilling to watch such programs continued to watch those programs." This fails to wreck the argument because AC-B negated could be consistent with the argument. If you apply the negation test and the AC supports/strengthens the argument, automatic elimination.

Also, note that the polls found that "most people claimed to be tired" so actually you only need above 50% (i.e. 51%), not almost everyone.

C No. Take this at its literal meaning. "At least some" is 1. So AC-C says, "Last year, one person who responded to polls in the editorialist's country did not believe that in their responses they were portraying themselves as they actually were." Also, keep in mind the conclusion says "whether or not they are aware of it," so what the people who were polled believe about their responses isn't relevant.

AC-C negated is, "Last year, none of the people who responded to polls in the editorialist's country did not believe that in their responses they were portraying themselves as they actually were." How does this wreck/impact the argument? It doesn't so we can't choose it.

D No. AC-D negated is, "Last year, some (1) of the people in the editorialist's country who responded to polls about their views about television news programs portrayed themselves as they actually were." This would fail to impact the argument because we are looking for something that would connect premise 1 (polls) with "as they wish to be perceived."

E Yes. This is one of the gaps identified above. Negating some is none. Negating AC-E would "Last year, no people responding to polls in the editorialist's country wished to be perceived as unwilling to watch television news programs. If no one wanted to be perceived as unwilling to watch, then how does the author jump from polls (premise 1) to "people often portray themselves as they wish to be perceived." Negated, AC-E destroys the argument and thus is the NA.

Break down argument (with #'s)

I like to use #'s on some difficult science stimuli to break down what they are saying/make it tangible.

Premise 1: On Earth, biological activity leads to a change in the ratio of isotope S-34 to isotope S-32.

i.e. on Earth ratio S-34/S-32 is 100:1

Premise 2: However, a newly discovered meteorite of Martian origin exhibits ratios of these elements found only in terrestrial minerals dating from before the beginning of life on Earth.

i.e. Martian ratio S-34/S-32 is 2:1, similar to pre-life earth minerals

Conclusion Therefore, it is unlikely that life occurred on Mars.

-----

Gaps/Jumps:

What if S-34/S-32 ratio for life on Earth doesn't apply to life on Mars?

What if there is new research that brings the Mars S-34/S-32 ratio closer to that of Earth?

-----

AC's - I am eliminating all the weaken AC's. The AC I choose will either strengthen or have no impact on the argument.

A No - weakens. This opens the possibility that even though Martian meteorite S-34/S-32 ratio (2:1) is different than that of Earth, (100:1), it (2:1) could still have evolved from life.

B No - weakens. This shows that the relationship between S-34/S-32 ratio does not need to be so strictly followed. Even though Mars meteorite (2:1) and Earth (100:1) ratios differ significantly, climatic and environmental factors could make the gap between the two less relevant.

C Yes - strengthens. If the S-34/S-32 ratio of the Mars meteorite (2:1) is the same as that of Mars, this solidifies the argument that the meteorite is representative of Mars. When comparing to AC-E, it is even more apparent that this is a strengthening AC because it eliminates the possibility of Mars' ratio being different from the meteorite.

D No - weakens. Few earth mineral samples have the ratio that indicates the presence of biological activity (100:1) OR most earth mineral samples do not have ratios that indicate the presence of biological activity. This opens the door that you can have life without the exact S-34/S-32 ratio present everywhere on earth (100:1). Therefore, it makes it more acceptable that the Mars meteorite S-34/S-32 ratio (2:1) is significantly different AND that life is still possible.

E No - weakens. This opens the possibility that when the meteorite left Mars it could've been at the ratio of S-34/S-32 on Earth (100:1). Maybe after, in space, the meterorite it was hit by space objects and became the ratio it is now (2:1). This means that originally, the S-34/S-32 ratio may have indicated that life is possible on Mars.

Breaking down argument (in my own words):

Mr. Klemke: People who complain about my roofing services are biased b/c of different political views; therefore, their complaints are invalid.

Author:

Premise: Different political views would allow (in no way prevent) someone to still be badly treated through Mr. Klemke's roofing services.

Conclusion: In contrast to Mr. Klemke's views, the complaints are valid.

---

Gap/Jump:

Just because someone's reasoning to reach their conclusion is flawed doesn't mean their conclusion is wrong.

i.e. Premise 1 is wrong ≠ conclusion is wrong

because there could be a premise 2 -> makes conclusion right

---

Going through AC's

A No- descriptively inaccurate. AC-A takes a consequence (complaint) of someone's being biased (having different political views from Mr. Klemke) to be a cause of the bias (complaint as a cause of different political views from Mr. Klemke). This simply does not happen.

B Yes. AC-B captures our pre-phrased gap/jump.

C No - descriptively inaccurate. AC-C rejects an argument on the grounds that the person who offered the argument is biased. No, this is what Mr. Klemke does, not the author.

D No this is not what is wrong with the author's argument. The author is not using a sample of opinions to make their argument.

E No. Even if the author overlooks this, how does this impact the argument? Also, it is unlikely that people whose views diverge would be unaware of their disagreement. I would caution from choosing AC's like E that seem to challenge basic common sense.

Breakdown of argument:

Premises:

Productivity growth in industrialized nations has dropped substantially since computer technology became widespread in the 1960s and 1970s.

Furthermore, productivity growth has dropped the most in industries that rely most heavily on computer technology.

Conclusion:

Thus, a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology probably has not improved its productivity growth by doing so.

Assumption/Gap: The argument assumed that what is true of industries that rely most heavily on computer technology as a whole must be true of its parts (a business that has increased its reliance) on computer technology. But what if general industry trends are not true for an individual business?

Visually, I have also captured the argument here, where the y axis is productivity growth rate and x axis represents the time period. Note that the first line depicts industrialized nations' drop in productivity growth and the second line shows that "productivity growth has dropped the most" in industries that rely most heavily on computer technology.

Going through AC's

A No, strengthens. It provides reasoning as to why industries that rely most heavily on computer technology saw a dramatic drop in productivity growth.

B No, irrelevant to the argument. We are comparing industrialized nations, industries that rely most heavily on computer technology, and an individual business, not productivity growth in many less industrialized nations.

C No, though enticing. This AC tackles a different subject than our stimulus, "industries responsible for producing computer technology" whereas the conclusion says "a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology." Though it's fair to think there may be some overlap between industries responsible for producing computer technology and a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology, it is possible there is no increased reliance at all. What if the industries that produce computer technology have always been reliant on computer technology (i.e. would not fit in increased it reliance)?

D Yes, this is the only answer choice that connects the gap we saw from "industries that rely most heavily on computer technology" in the premise to "a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology." While you could argue that businesses whose productivity growth has been greatest may not be representative of a general business, it is still the only AC that touches on the gap. Moreover, if D is true, how could we believe the argument's conclusion?

E No, irrelevant. We are not talking about the next few years, we are talking about a business that has already increased its reliance on computer technology.

Breaking down argument:

Premise: A survey last year found that only one-third of the Institute's plumbing graduates—well below the national average—were able to pass the plumber's certification test.

Conclusion: This shows that the new curriculum has lowered the quality of plumbing instruction.

-----

Pre-phrase:

Before going into the AC's, I identified the flaw as the underlying assumption that just because only 33% of the Institute's plumbing graduates passed the test doesn't necessarily mean that the new curriculum has lowered the quality of plumbing instruction. For example, what if the passing rate before the experimental curriculum was 20%? So 33% is actually an improvement for the Institute, even if it is "well below than the national average."

-----

Going through AC's

A No- descriptively inaccurate. This AC treats a phenomenon (33% passage rate) as an effect of an observed change (experimental curriculum) in the face of evidence indicating that it may be the cause of the change (33% passage rate caused experimental curriculum). However, the experimental curriculum has been in place for several years, whereas the survey was taken last year. For A to be correct, the survey would've had to be taken before the experimental curriculum.

B No - descriptively inaccurate. This AC claims that the author "uses a lack of evidence that the quality of the Institute's plumbing instruction has increased..." Yet, there is no lack of evidence. In fact, there is a survey, so very solid evidence. Can easily eliminate B on this basis.

C Yes - gets at the flaw. This AC concludes that something has diminished in quality (Conclusion: new curriculum has lowered the quality of plumbing instruction) from evidence indicating that it is of below-average quality (Premise: 1/3 passage rate well below the national average). Again, what if the passage rate before the experimental program was less than 33% and thereby the experimental program is actually higher quality of plumbing instruction than previously.

D No - while descriptively accurate, this is not a flaw because we do not need the national average. We are told in the premise that the Institute's passage rate was 33%, "well below the national average," which is enough information.

E No - descriptively inaccurate. This is not a conditional logic stimulus and there is no sufficiency/necessity flaw.

I had misinterpreted A, the correct AC, to be about Espinosa's argument, though it is the only one that accurately references an analogy.

------

AC A: "provide an argument that is analogous to the one given by Jones but that is clearly fallacious"

"That is clearly fallacious" refers to the following portion of Espinosa's argument: "That's like saying that reaching the credit limit on your credit cards is a good thing for your finances because it discourages you from spending excessively." Implied is that no one would say reaching the credit limit is objectively a good thing, as Espinosa later concludes "it's still poor financial management."

Takeaway is to return to AC's that more accurately fit what the speaker is doing (i.e analogy in this case) to make sure I did not discount for a silly reason.

We can use an example to flesh out this stimulus:

Premise 1: "Book publishers have traditionally published a few books that they thought were of intrinsic merit even though these books were unlikely to make a profit"

Premise 2: "Nowadays, however, fewer of these books are being published."

Suppose that for premise 1, traditionally, 10 books with intrinsic merit + unlikely to make a profit are published each a year. Nowadays, for premise 2, it is down to 5 a year.

----

Conclusion: It seems, therefore, that publishers now, more than ever, are more interested in making money than in publishing books of intrinsic value.

There is an assumption in this conclusion that the drop from 10 to 5 (premise 1 to 2) is because of the publishers' being more interested in profit than intrinsic value. The question I have going into the AC's is what if there is literally any other reason to explain this change? What if in the time between premise 1 and 2, readers' tastes changed (i.e. readers became less interested and therefore demanded less of the publishers' books deemed 'intrinsic merit/unlikely to make a profit' so publishers responded as a result and fewer of these books are being published)?

-----

AC's

A No This does not affect the conclusion. Even if book publishers have always been very interested in making money, AC-A could be true AND the conclusion could stand. Publishers in the past and present could care about profit. The conclusion says "publishers now, more than ever, are more interested in making money."

B Yes This addresses the question I asked above, by providing an alternate explanation for why "intrinsic merit" books diminished from 10 to 5. If AC-B is true in that "there has been a notable decline in the quality of books written in recent years," then perhaps that is the reason less "intrinsic merit" books are being published, not the profit motive.

C No It is unclear if/how this would affect the present and argument. Just because "books of intrinsic value would unexpectedly make a sizable profit" in the past doesn't mean that is true nowadays or in the future. Moreover, if it is possible for books of intrinsic value to make a sizable profit, this could potentially strengthen the argument by demonstrating that publishers are "more interested in making money."

D No It is unclear how this is related to the argument. This would diagram to

/profit guaranteed -> /willing to be published

authors willing to be published -> then profit be guaranteed.

How does this relate to the argument? AC-D also describes a condition that is true in both the past and present, in which some authors who are willing to be published require guaranteed profit. Does that then mean that publishers now, more than ever, are more interested in making money? Not necessarily.

We need something that also addresses the issue of intrinsic merit/value, which is entirely missing from this answer choice.

E No This could potentially strengthen the author's argument by providing the industry context/economic precarity as a reason for why "publishers now, more than ever, are more interested in making money than in publishing books of intrinsic value."

I think untimed practice has helped me a lot with RC, especially if you find that you tend to struggle with specific passage types (ie comparative, science, etc.). I will do science passages untimed and try to get a perfect score - I think if you aren't able to get questions right untimed then getting them right timed is even more difficult. I also redo passages from old PT's or very challenging passages from past sections untimed. This is good to see where you have grown but also what areas you may still be struggling with in RC.

I think reading difficult dense texts outside of LSAT prep can also help. For me, since I struggle with science passages, I've been reading a couple of science news articles every day so I can get better acclimated to the tone/topics.

@ElizabethPadrnos C is incorrect because the sentence does NOT conflict with the researchers' conclusions. Instead, it serves to be an example of "But situational factors do not account for all code switching....while the other is used only sparingly to achieve certain rhetorical effects...This was the case with a study of family of Puerto Rican Americans."

@sjeong291240 I think the issue with AC C is the "abandoned" portion of it. No where in the passage is abandoning the well then going to counteract contamination. The "plugged" portion of this AC is attractive but AC E is even better because it specifies "casing is set properly" which matches the method described in P3.

While B is not an ideal answer choice, it is certainly better than the other ones. I got this wrong initially and then right in BR. I had chosen C but I now see it is incorrect because "the safety of newly developed technologies" is not what "the hazards of insufficient knowledge" refers to in the passage. The "hazards" include "long-term stability, corrosion, dissolution, ground water bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater..." B best captures these as "consequences" of drilling in complex geologic systems (all those 'hazards' above).