Wait, I redact my second paragraph. I'm seeing now how the first paragraph in B is still negative evidence, it's just one where you get rid of the auxiliary premise as oppose to the theory.

Still confused on the second example.

I'm having a lot of difficulty with relating the illustrations in B to the theoretical concepts in A. Namely, it seems like negative evidence is when you find a counter example, but their inability to find vulcan didn't seem like actively finding something that went against your prediction. It just seemed more like they couldn't/didn't find anything as opposed to actively finding something that directly went against their belief.

I understand how finding Neptune, which in turn accounted for the orbit of Uranus, is an example of Positive Evidence (they found something that aligns with their prediction, therefore it's positive)

But I really don't see how the second paragraph of B is an example of Negative Evidence. Can someone please clarify...?

I personally thought this passage was brutal.

It was hard keeping track of "language specialists," other "specialists, "intellectual historians." I mean, SHEESSHHHH, they all sounded the same effing thing to me.

Anyway, I got answer B for question 8 but mostly because of the last part about "important and neglected latin texts."

C-E were easy to eliminate, and I too was stuck between A or B

Line 14 states, "even the most learned students of Ren. Latin generally confine themselves to...." which to me, sort of suggested that the author thinks these learned students are failing to do something or not quite fully addressing something important (something here being the more dense, revolutionizing works of medicine, law, etc). Therefore, when B stated that these students are lacking in their ability to address "important and neglected Latin texts," it seemed to sort of reflect or parallel the author's opinion that some great work was being skipped over.

Is B basically saying "a patients prediction of sudden changes in their medical status IS MORE likely to be remembered by medical staff when such change ACTUALLY occurs"

But they use the double negative of less likely and no change?

Then this would DIRECTLY mirror the explanation/phenomenon going on with the werewolf babies?

I've noticed that many answers to Strengthen/Weaken questions are throwing in wrong answers that are just instances of the cause (but without noting what the effect is) or conversely, instances of the effect (but without noting what the cause is).

Here, the cause is "a need to avoid predators," the effect "irregular flight patterns"

Answer C is just saying "there are also other butterflies with the effect" BUT it' fails to specify IF these other butterflies have the same cause (namely, a need to avoid predators)

Answer E is just saying "there are other butterflies that share this cause with red admirals. Namely, they too have a need to avoid predators." Okay, but do they subsequently have the same effect (flying irregularly?)

This is similar to that question about the species of sockeye salmon and how they evolved into two separate breeds depending on the depth of the lake. One wrong answer choice just said something like "the native salmon also developed into two species as well." BUT failed to give us the reason WHY the native population did this too.

I'm still having difficulty differentiating between A and B for question 10....

Any thoughts?

Is this NA assumption basically just BLOCKING out the possibility that the phases of the moon might also lead gardeners to plant during a time that also makes them vulnerable to frost?

But of course, they have to state it very discretely by saying "the FIRST warm spell of spring" and "LATER in the spring"

I think there was also another "absolute versus relative" claim in answer A. Namely, we're trying to find where mate originated, which if you're comparing it to the other countries, (how else do you show origination if not by saying yes to one country and no to the others?) it would be a relative claim.

The country in which X originated will have been using X longer, than the countries in which X did NOT originate.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the other countries haven't been using it for a long time.

Say it originated 800 years ago in Paraguay. Okay, that's definitely longer than Argentina, who may have only been using it for 700 years. But 700 is still a long time.

AC E seemed so similar to B. After reading the argument, I DID pick up on the idea that it's hinting at (i.e. that all rockets will pass thru both low and high altitudes) so I understand why B is correct.

E seemed to be hinting at the same thing though... The reason E isn't correct is because no where did it state that both the short and long HAD to be together on one engine?

IF it didn't say that both of these nozzles had to be on just one engine, would it still be wrong for mixing up a sufficient and necessary condition?

Would welcome your thoughts on this, but it seemed like the passage laid out having both a short and long nozzle was a sufficient condition for producing "most effective"

S+L -----> Most Effective

Answer E is saying:

Most Effective ----> S + L

Again, ignoring the issue that both the Short and Long DONT have to be together on one engine.

Additionally, could the answer choice be written as "the argument fails to show that an action performed with one purpose can't have additional purposes?"

Would that work? I.e. sure, they preform them to protect them from law suits but doing that doesn't bar other purposes...

Or does the word "Merely" translate to "only?"

Regardless, even if "Protect from law suits" was a necessary condition, that doesn't prevent there being multiple necessary conditions right?

This may sound odd, but can another necessary assumption be:

Whenever an amphibian species population varies greatly from year to year from weather variations, their numbers do not only vary by getting larger.

Horribly stated, but what I'm trying to suggest is that their variation from year to year can go either up or down. Because if all and any type of weather change resulted in more frogs no matter what, then it would be possible to rule out natural weather variations...

Dude, the question on Dec 2015 about Elephant Seals and Fur Seals and diving to greater depths and holding their breath longer.... that one takes the cake as the WORST question ever.

WOULD another sufficient condition be:

AR ---> F

Because then you'd have:

SA---m----> AR

AR ---------> F

_

SA -----m----> F

This would give us a stronger conclusion than needed (e.g. it gives us a most instead of a some) but isn't stronger OKAY with sufficient conditions?

I think that answer E could go both ways. It just says that the scientists think this research was unfairly neglected. What if it was total shit and therefore very fairly neglected? If scientists ARE then citing these total shit papers and thus increasing their citation count, that could suggest that it doesn't encourage good research (i.e. it is weakening)

But clearly, that explanation required too many assumptions to be correct.

I think this question is more like a necessary assumption question....

It's very similar to a question in the June 2015 test about the comets and planets and oval/circular orbits. That too was a strengthen question where the right answer was just something that HAD to be true for the proposed cause/effect to exist, but barely did anything in the way of strengthening.

Here, if multi-year research WAS cited in journals before the research was completed, then these scientists won't be avoiding the (presumably better, more scientifically rigorous) multiyear projects.

I fell for the trap answer in A. Doh!

Would this be a similar, but shortened version, of the argument and the wrong answer? (p.s. NOT focusing on the issue of "desire" to meet expectations, but rather, focusing on the issue of the conclusion being very specific and qualified to JUST this one aspect of surveys)

People who need to travel must have a well packed suit case that protects its items. Often however, toiletries such as shampoos and conditioners will explode during air travel due to pressurization. However, in a de-pressurization container, the bottle will automatically adjust to the different altitudes and hence not explode. Therefore if a de-pressurization container is used to pack toiletries, spillage and leakage will not result in problems to your suit case and/or the item's contained within it.

A) the argument fails to realize that there are other things that can ruin your suit case and or the items within it.

These other things, such as packing fragile items near the boarder with no protection, or placing shoes on top of clothing (gross).

:-)

I think (could be wrong) the whole to part is:

Part: food co-ops

Whole: Consumer cooperative

Characteristic: Being cheaper

Thus, even though the Whole generally has this characteristic (being cheaper) it doesn't mean that this particular Part has it as well.

(d)

Part: Bikes

Whole: Private means of Transport

Characteristic: polluting more

With this in mind, would this work for answer E

By that line of reasoning, we can conclude that donuts will help you loose more weight than eating an apple, since donuts are a type of artificially sweetened foods and artificially sweetened foods tend to have fewer calories than naturally grown foods, and excessive calorie intake contributes to weight gain.

My Question is:

Is there a "bridging" type necessary assumption here? "If you do not defer to journalists then news reports by these journalists won't have an effect on you"

Because when I read this question, I did make the connection between the fact that EVERYONE has direct experience with the economy and the only time you defer to journalists is when you DON'T have direct experience, BUT the answer choice said that these news reports are unlikely to have a significant effect....

What if there are people who DONT actually defer to journalists, i.e. they don't read the reports themselves, they just hear about them via someone else or something, then THEY could be BOTH not deferring to journalists BUT STILL being influenced...

I know the answer choice would have been TOO easy if it just said "People will not likely be deferring to journalists when it comes to the economy," but there seemed to be a little equivocation or gap still...

I think so.

The passage lays out

DJ -----> ~DE

Contrapositive: DE ----> ~DJ

DJ - defer to journalist

DE- direct experience

B says

~DE ------> DJ

But that's negating, without switching.

Is D analogous to the following?:

Passage: Many girls have gotten onto the stage at music festivals by wearing short shorts and pasties. Some men have been observed rocking out on stage at music festivals too. Thus, these men must have gotten on stage by wearing short shorts and pasties.

(D) Most girls that have ever gotten onto the stage at music festivals have done so by wearing short shorts

Also, answers A and E both bring up size... larger or smaller objects, but honestly, I have no idea what the eff is larger, a comet or sun or planet? Thus, would it be safe to assume that SINCE THE PASSAGE MADE NO DISTINCTION as to size, an answer choice that doesn't explain what size does in relation to the purported cause or effect won't be right?

Could this be an instance of correctly using size in an answer? "the comets orbiting OUR sun were thrown into oval orbits by encounters with relatively small planets orbiting our sun, AND the larger the planet that is encountered is, the greater the likelihood of oval orbit. All the planets around these distant stars are larger than any planet around our sun." (Convoluted, I know, but just trying to see HOW an irrelevant concept, like size, could appear in an answer choice).

I think I understand what was bugging me so much about this question. Please share your input, because when I first read C, it seemed too strong to be a correct answer. She's INCORRECT? Really? Doesn't it almost seem hasty to say she's incorrect? BUT then I realized I kept confusing Dr. Burn's claim with whether or not AN ACTUAL COMMET RESERVOIR exists. They're totally separate.

What's going on is that Burns essentially commits a mini absence of evidence fallacy. Burns says, "there's no evidence (recently at least) to confirm the comet, SO the comet must not exist."

the "so the comet must not exist" part is Burn's claim, which isn't too strong to say is incorrect.

I read answer C as thinking it's incorrect to say that the comet doesn't exist. We can't really tell whether or not the comet exists, but we can tell that Burn's claim is at least incorrect because she's committing a fallacy of absence of evidence.

Thoughts?

could you also think of this flaw as the fallacy of false dichotomy? The argument assumes that you can't BOTH save your hide AND protect other ppl, when you very well may be able to.

I understand that it's using the premise of "merely for the purpose of protecting selves..." as a way of suggesting that we DON'T get a Reduction in Injuries (which kicks back and negates the sufficient term), but it seems like this could be a flaw of "confusing one possible way for the only possible way"

I think what made this hard was the way the conclusion was given. I've had many questions like this before (e.g. assumes that something could only be true if it was intended for that purpose) and have usually been good at spotting that type of flaw. But here, the whole prescriptive nature of the conclusion, going as far as saying that manufacturers should NOT overstate their dangers, was different than what I'm use to seeing.

I think if it had said, "therefore, manufacturers of children's toys are not genuine in their desire to reduce injury when they overstate their dangers," I would have more easily recognized the flaw.

could a sufficient assumption just be "anything I play, I am always one of the best in the world"

Another issue with D is that it attributes this oval-orbit phenomena to "some other object" when our conclusion very specifically states that these planets' circular orbits were caused by encounters with other planets orbiting the same star, not just some random other object like a meteorite or a space shuttle.

Good Point.

I just imagined in my head the Marketing Consultant going back to LRG and saying, "Hahahah, you guys are failing now because you took the competitor's advice (i.e. answer choice A)" and then LRG responding with, "dude, your competitors advice was identical to what you had proposed...."

:D

Also, it never actually says that the marketing consultant even GAVE any advice or created an ad campaign. Maybe he, let's call him Larry, just read over the campaign idea that LRG already had and was all, "nope, nope, this blows, it won't work." and then the Larry's competitor read over it later that day and was all, "yeah this is awesome, it'll work"

So really, it could have been the same campaign the entire time.

Lastly, I think it's really important to pay particularly close attention to the actual wording of the conclusion. I think moocow314 was trying to get at this, but the conclusion ISN'T just that the competitor's ad campaign (ASSUMING it was a different campaign) did nothing, the conclusion goes one step further and outright says that it sucked ass.

What answer A is saying is "well it did sommmmmmething though.... Without the campaign, it would have been worse." While that may be true, ask yourself, is doing soommmmmmmmeeeething really a forceful objection to it sucking ass entirely?

That's like saying, "well I totally got an F on this exam, but don't worry, because I got at least 3 questions right!!!"

That's the difference between that and Question 13. In quesiton 13, the conclusion ISN'T that "putting more people in prison made things worse," rather, the conclusion just states that it didn't do anything at all, that there is no change.

So there (Q13) we just need to show that there is sooooommmmmmeee evidence of change, some teeeeny tiny benefit and we have proved the conclusion wrong.

Or Alternatively, could a weaken answer of type 1 (strengthen the rejected argument) be:

The prey and various other threats that the people of stone age ireland faced were quite small in comparison and did not require a heavy or large weapon to defeat.

(a little too obvious for an lsat answer, but you get the point)