pass

Picked B instantly, even though I wasn't too sure, but it was the only one that seemed to reverse the cause. Did a bit of further digging during BR. We see that the premise is showing us a correlation and then gives us a causation in the conclusion.

I think to break it down, we can think of it as:

Trauma -corr- Higher Cortisol

Higher Cortisol -corr- less PTSD

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

Trauma -causes-> Higher Cortisol Levels

All we established in the stimulus was a correlation, so B is trying to tell us that higher cortisol was already higher BEFORE the premise that mentions trauma and no PTSD. Now we might see why the group that had trauma but no PTSD had a higher cortisol production when compared to the non-trauma group.

I didn't really consider A because it seemed to be talking about a different group, the non-trauma group, and also "sometimes" is mad weak.

chopped question.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

If we said X -> Y

B is saying: 

Confuses Y for Z

Basically, we're confusing an idea on the right side of the conditional chain with another type of idea from the right side.

Sleeping is necessary for being happy the next day:

Happy -> Sleep 

But we could say that laughing necessarily results from being happy:

Happy -> Laughing

But the stimulus is not confusing Sleep with Laughing.

what the actual.......

is the reason why we can't hook it up to the first premise because "r" will become negated and become a mistaken negation?

im boutta cry

#help

A. strengthens mildly, shows a control

B. irrelevant

C. encouraged? what if they don't listen

D. strengthens

E. stupid answer ngl but poe works

If (C) is true, meaning caffeine helps slow connective tissue degeneration, then the observed higher arthritis rates in decaf drinkers could be due to the lack of caffeine rather than the presence of something harmful in decaf coffee. This would weaken the journalist’s argument that decaf coffee itself is damaging connective tissue.

If (C) is false, meaning caffeine has no protective effect, then the difference in arthritis rates would be more likely due to something in decaf coffee itself, strengthening the journalist’s claim.

if you're a group that owns more than everyone combined, you're def 50%+

boutta put a gun to my head.

D is an illegal negation... i negated the "not" in the answer so it looked like prem to conclusion. i should've read slower and see that the negation comes after "will"...

Doing this question today on 11/06/2024 is insane.......... the timing after the US election XD

Does anyone have any tips for coming up with an answer in your head before looking at the answer choices? For example, should we hold the conclusion and think "what if conclusion is true, but..." or is this the wrong way to go about finding a loophole?

Thanks :)

the way E was written really trolled me... i thought it was saying that aerobic volunteers had more exercise than weight training volunteers. rather, it saying that aerobic group had more aerobic exercise than did weight training groups doing aerobic

holy moly, the "does not have a higher priority" is just saying it's easier to do the second than the first. i was confused because i didn't see anything about a project having less priority. but since we know that both projects are equal, we definitely know that one doesn't have higher priority over the other.

didn't pick B because we don't know which project we should finish since it just says "one of the two," but which one exactly?

wtf is D saying bro

holy shit i might be stupid as hell for picking B. 

i thought it was removing an alt hypothesis, but WHY THE FLYING FOCK WOULD THE FAIRY CIRCLES NOT BE ABLE TO SURVIVE THE DROUGHT? it says AROUND the fairy circles...

let's say we grant B's explanation that the grass around the patches are some tough mf's like JY says, ok... so what? great, now we know that the circles are weaker, but what does that have to do with termites? we're tasked with strengthening that it might actually be termites, not introducing a new explanation!

can't lie, i looked at E for a while before picking C... here's an analogy for those that are confused with E.

just imagine you're boiling water in a pot and the pot has a fixed boiling point (like the transmission line’s max temp). but if you blow a fan on it (like wind cooling), it will take more heat input to reach that point. the boiling point doesn’t change, rather the amount of heat required to get there does.

OR here is an oven analogy, think of the transmission line as an oven that can only safely go up to 500°F (the maximum operating temp). that limit never changes. now imagine a fan blowing on the oven. the fan doesn’t change the 500°F limit, but it cools the oven so it takes longer to heat up. this means you can cook more before hitting the limit. i think it's quite clear at this point that you can't change the max temperature an oven can take in, it'll probably blow up???

Paused for a bit on D, but if D is the case, it strengthens the argument because why is the average visit 501 as compared to 640? If it's lower now, and doctors see the sales reps more according to D, then yeah, it seems to strengthen the argument, which is why it's the wrong AC.

i saw it as:

readers can enter mind -> experience

hence conclusion: little social significance

it didn't really make sense to me if you experience the world from the moral perspectives of the novel's characters would mean that there's little social significance. rather it seems to make more sense if you could not enter a the novelist's mind, then there's little social significance, hence leading me to E.

My brain basically blew up trying to understand E even though I picked A on both attempts...

But for those who picked E, here's why it's wrong!

Essentially it depends on which idea you apply to define the idea of the "phenomenon"

Definition 1:

The former phenomenon = TV programs with paranormal content

The latter phenomenon = Scientific understanding being impeded

With this definition, (E) would read:

"It takes for granted that the contention that popular TV programs cause an impediment to scientific understanding must be baseless if scientific understanding has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of TV programs."

This is incorrect because the executive never discusses steady increases in the number of paranormal TV programs or their relationship with scientific progress. The executive’s argument is based on the historical coexistence of paranormal stories (e.g., dramatists using ghosts and spirits) and the advancement of scientific understanding. There's no claim that paranormal TV programs have increased over time, nor that scientific understanding has persisted despite this increase. So, the assumption introduced in (E) doesn’t match the executive’s actual argument.

Definition 2:

The former phenomenon = Scientific understanding not being impeded

The latter phenomenon = TV programs with paranormal content

With this definition, (E) would basically say:

"It takes for granted that the contention that scientific understanding not being impeded causes popular TV programs must be baseless if TV programs have persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of scientific understanding."

Do you see what's wrong with this????

This version suggests a causal relationship in the wrong direction --- that scientific understanding not being impeded leads to the production of paranormal TV programs. But the executive is not suggesting that scientific understanding somehow causes the creation of paranormal TV shows. The argument is about whether TV shows that feature paranormal incidents impede scientific understanding, not the reverse.

Moreover, the executive never suggests that TV programs have persisted despite increases in scientific understanding. Again, the argument is purely about historical coexistence, not about causality or trends in the pervasiveness of either phenomenon.

STUPID MISHMASH :')

wait what??

sigh.. not that bad, but took me a while because i kept seeing the last sentence as the conclusion so i had no clue wtf was going on............ def need to warmup before i start a pt

reading E gave me an aneurysm

About to shoot myself. By the time I reached D, I forgot that the stimulus said that if any believed or didn't believe, they'd still be part of medieval epistemology. Omf