Will proctored PTs be making a comeback any time soon (maybe before the August exam)? I've discovered that a significant point of discomfort for me during the real test vs. PTs comes from the feeling of being watched remotely, an experience that's missing during self-administered PTs. It would be very helpful if these were offered again!
True, I think that's where the test-writers want your mind to go. But people will often paint major events that happened before they were born. Even if they didn't though, the fact that they very well could do it means it doesn't weaken. This one was so hard imo.
I think it swaps necessary/sufficient.
Mapping out C gives you: any rehab. theory that crims should get longer sentences for repeat offenses --> acceptable
Mapping out E gives you: " " is acceptable --> rehab. theory
In other words, if a theory where longer sentences for repeat offenders is acceptable, its gotta be a rehab. theory as opposed to retrib, since those 2 are the only possible acceptable choices according to the stimulus and we were already told that theory is unacceptable under the retrib theory. C says if there's a rehab theory conforming to that principle about loner sentences, it must be acceptable... we don't know if that's true. Maybe it is but we can't infer it. All we know is that principle would be unacceptable under retrib theory.
I think this question is really tricky for exactly the reason you said, because of how that last sentence was structured.
But if you parse out/translate just the "premise" portion of that sentence, what it is really saying is: Any social philosophy that countenances chaos deserves no further attention. I'd say the "i.e., anarchy" part is actually their conclusion, like: Any social philosophy that countenances chaos deserves no further attention. Therefore, anarchy deserves no further attention... but they all of the sudden presume the social condition of anarchy necessarily is "chaos" in that sense, that it doesn't promote peace and order. So that's where they slipped up.
For me, this question worked well to solve by process of elimination, since none of the other ACs really pointed out anything helpful.
This one is weird. But if you negate A, it does undermine the conclusion. This argument claims the amount of money people with jobs have in their savings accounts hasn't gone up. But what if that's just because they started using that money to pay off their debt, and they did have more money before? The argument is trying to claim that if they actually were being cautious with their money and not spending, they'd have more in their accounts. But maybe they already spent that extra money they were holding onto. If people are spending more of their money to pay off debt (negation of A), then the conclusion can't really hold.
So I think specifically since this is a weakening question, you aren't making any "assumptions" per se in AC E. What you're trying to do is point out the assumption that the stimulus makes to reach its conclusion, which necessarily is that ONLY individuals are the ones buying cars. E is merely giving an example in which that assumption is not true, by saying "Hey, what if it isn't only individuals? In fact, what if individuals make up only a very small percentage of those purchasing new cars?" E provides a scenario where that weakness in the stimulus is exactly identified. Sure, it is still possible that individuals pay more for a new car than others in this scenario... but we can't know that for certain, and that is the entire point. It could have given a completely different case that would still weaken the conclusion, like "All new cars purchased in the last 25 years were exclusively government vehicles." I think remembering this is a weakening question might help, since it doesn't have to prove the conclusion false, it just has to weaken it.
I see what you mean. However, I don't think AC E assumes that individuals are buying cheaper new cars than non-individuals. I do think, to use your point, the original argument assumes the opposite—that individuals are the only ones buying cars. It jumps from "average price paid for a new car" to the average that "individuals who buy new cars today." Within the initial category of average price paid for a new car 25 years ago, that price could be made up of non-individuals.
So, all you're really doing is pointing out what this argument failed to consider. What if there are non-individuals in this calculation? We don't know for sure if there are or are not, but we know for sure that the argument didn't mention it at all. If the argument had ruled those non-individuals out and said that the average price paid for a new car by individuals steadily increased relative to their individual income, that seems like it might be an acceptable claim. Hope this helps.
Well, yes. But to sanction also means to approve or to authorize, it's just another meaning of the word.
I rejected C especially because of the "from different citizens" part. This passage never talked about any discrepancy in the sacrifices required between different individuals. In fact, it specifically talks about "shared sacrifice" as you stated, which sort of indicates that the author sees the sacrifice as a necessary equal cost we all must bear. So, if it just said "requires degrees of sacrifice from different citizens" I think it would be iffy, and almost wouldn't make sense anymore, because it would still have that "different citizens" part. Hope that helps.
Yes, you are exactly right that it is talking about after the factory closed.
B says that when the factory was open, its manager fired several employees who filed injury claims. This would give us reason to think that perhaps these employees who are currently filing never spoke up about their legitimate injuries while they were still employed for fear of being fired, and now have nothing to lose by filing claims since the factory is defunct. In a workplace where filing an injury claim gets you fired, it makes sense that one would have to wait until they were no longer at risk of being fired in order to file the claim. Thus, B actually weakens the argument that these people filing claims are "just out to gain benefits they did not deserve." Maybe they did deserve the benefits but just didn't want to be let go.
On the other hand, C says most people who do file an injury claim do so on the same day they were injured. Since we know, as you said, that the factory is currently closed, we know these people who are filing were not injured the day they filed since the factory is in fact closed. So with what C says, that most people who file injury claims do so on the same day they were injured, we can think yeah, these people are probably not really injured and are just filing claims after-the-fact. This strengthens the conclusion that these people are out to gain benefits they don't actually deserve, rather than weakens it.
Just because some people with pets are happier than most people without pets, doesn't necessarily mean that any person (AKA literally everyone) who wants to be as happy as possible should think about getting a pet. Some can literally mean one person, so imagine a pool of 100 people with pets and 1 of them is happier than most of the people without pets. This still counts as "some" and doesn't do much to undermine the sociologist's claim. At least for me, I was able to eliminate A from this when deciding between A and D.
D is far better to weaken because it brings to light the possibility that the people with pets who are happy would be actually less happy without them. Thus, those individuals have reached their "peak happiness" and this directly undermines the sociologist's argument.