E negated: Even if a weather pattern with a natural cause has a seven-day cycle, it does not necessarily mean that the cause has a seven-day cycle

If E is negated, then the premise of the argument is null.

thank you!

Top tip: the degree of the conclusion will directly be equal the degree of the conclusion in the right answer.

All Candidates → Small-Business Owner

Most Small-Business Owner→ Competent Manager

Competent Manager→ Necessary Skills

C→ SBO ‑m→ CM → NS

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

C ‑m→ NS

"All" is before "Most" so no valid argument can be made.

"A" is a trap answer choice in that, it does not match the format and it's a valid argument.

Sales→ At least 1 year

Managament ‑m→ Sales

At least 1 year → Understand marketing.

M ‑m→ S→ 1 year → UM.

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

M ‑m→ UM.

"B" says:

Menu → Fat-free

Fat-free ‑m→ sugar free → low calories

M→ FF‑m→ SF‑m → LC

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

M ‑m→ LC

"All" is before "Most" so no valid argument can be made.

Since the conclusion deals with probability, we know that this is inductive reasoning, and therefore cannot be drawn out using formal logic.

Conclusion: It seems probable that the invention of money occurred independently in more than one society.

Why?

Premise: (Because) it is universal but not rooted in innate ability.

SA: some societies have been isolated enough not to have been influenced by any other society.

Argument: Since some societies have been isolated enough not to have been influenced by any other society and money is universal but not rooted in innate ability, it seems probable that the invention of money occurred independently in more than one society.

Explanation: the SA is "eliminative" evidence (we strengthen the argument by eliminating reasons for doubting its validity). In other words, we are making it clear that conclusion is probable because it is possible. This is a purely inductive strategy.

All bankers are athletes.

B→A

None of the lawyers are bankers.

L→ /B

Remember, in (B→A) "A" is the superset" and "B" is the subset.

So, when it says (B→/L), all this tells us is that L has no overlap in subset B, but this doesn't tell us whether L's membership falls outside of the superset A.

At most we know that L is not a superset of A = not(L→A).

The negation of "all" is "some not"

L←s→/A or A←s→/L

8. E)"during the drilling of an oil well, drilling mud is continuously discharged into the sea." is not supported by either passage. We know Passage A does not touch on disposal at all so they only place it could be stated is in passage B. But passage B explicitly say: "drilling muds are normally released only during the drilling phase of the well's existence. (Line 31-32) and that "releases are controlled" (line 36-37).

So, there's a difference between a continuous release and a controlled one. A continuous release literally means one without interruption whereas a controlled release would imply intervals. So, Passage B does not support AC E.

Over a period of hours, they dumb the entire batch into the sea meaning they don't do it all at once, they sprinkle it out, so the concentration is not too much.

For MP questions, for a passage that merely presenting rather than arguing, the main point will be the main takeaway and our main takeaway is that for us to achieve a better understanding of a region's history, historians had to expand upon their definition of what constitutes primary sources.

Line 15-17: In furthering their investigation [of the history of the Pacific Coast], some historians recognized the need to expand their definition of what a source is [to move beyond what is shown in the written record left by European American explorers].

Why?

Because a fuller understanding of the history of the Pacific Coast requires recognition of Asian settler's impact on it and their impact falls outside of the written record.

No, the author's view is strictly this: Haraway's book on the history of science is the most ambitious yet written. The author supports the author’s argument the author cites ways in which the book makes radical departures from traditional approaches to writing books on the history of science (Paragraph 2) and citing ways in which the book utilizes innovative writing styles both methodically (Paragraph 3) and contextually (Paragraph 4). The last sentence of the paragraph is the author telling us the reason why Haraway chose the primate as her subject, so this is still her perspective. When the author is speaking on behalf of the Haraway, we must assume that Haraway believes this herself.

The purpose of the passage, any section of the passage, and any word utilized in the passage is to advance/convey the author's argument. The author's argument is this: Haraway's book is the most ambitious book on the history of science yet written (Line 1-2). To support the author's argument the author cites ways in which the book makes radical departures from traditional approaches to writing books on the history of science (Paragraph 2) and citing ways in which the book utilizes innovative writing styles both methodically (Paragraph 3) and contextually (Paragraph 4).

Now the word "rhetoric" is said in Paragraph 4. Remember, the purpose of the passage, the purpose of any section of the passage, and the purpose of any word utilized in the passage is to advance/convey the author's argument: Haraway's book is the most ambitious book on the history of science yet written. The purpose of Paragraph 4 discusses argues that Haraway is innovative in incorporating broad cultural issues into her analysis. Its innovative in that incorporating such topic it goes against decades of rhetoric on how such books ought to be written. Someone is deemed "innovative" when they are doing something that no one else is doing. To go against deeply ingrained rhetoric is to be innovative. So, to use the term "rhetoric" is to describe the very thing that Haraway reacted against and thus characterize her as innovative.

D is wrong because the author is not seeking to bash on the conventional approach to writing a book on the history of science. Instead, the author's intention is calling attention to Haraway's ambitious departure from the status quo. Notice how the author does not say Haraway's approach is better than the traditional. The author does not give preference to one or the other. The author is merely calling attention to an individual who went against the grain.

D is wrong because the book is not about the history of women in science. The book is about the history of science as a discipline. The main point of the passage is that Haraway's book is the most ambitious book on the history of science (Lines 1-2). The author supports this argument first by describing its radical departure from traditional approaches to writing about the history of science and second by describing its innovative writing style both methodically and contextually. The fact that the book was essentially a proposal to reform the scientific approach to nature directly supported by lines 22-31.

These types of passages can be considered more difficult because the author does not offer an argument. Usually when the author offers an argument, their argument is the main point, and the purpose of the passage is to convey the author's argument. In this case, the author does not provide an argument, so this is a "presentation" passage. Instead of the main point being the author's argument, the main point is just the main takeaway. In other words, what did we learn from the passage. Therefore, the main point of the passage is that we learned that platypuses hunt prey using their bill. But since the author does not offer an argument, the purpose in a "presentation" passage is not to convey the "author's" argument. The purpose of a "presentation" passage is to convey the main takeaway. In other words, how did the author present the main takeaway. If we were to describe how the author presented the main takeaway, we would see that they do so by describing two recent studies. That is how we get 16 and 17 correct. We can also get 21 correct by recognizing that the author presents the main takeaway (MP) and supports it by describing the two studies that brought about the main takeaway (purpose).

Hi there! So, I learned that the purpose of any passage is to convey the author's argument and the author's argument can just be as simple as there is something worthy of reporting on. If we ever feel unsure about our answers for a PP and a MP question, we should always cross reference the other to make sure they are in alignment on content and emphasis.

16) SO, when you encounter a passage that contains no real argument then the purpose of the passage is to present something. So, the right answer to the "Purpose" question will be a holistically accurate description of what the passage mainly talks about. In this case, the majority of the passage focuses on two recent studies. While we do get into the implications of these findings a tad bit in the passage the bulk of it is spent on describing the two studies themselves.

17) Since the author gives no argument and merely is presenting two studies, the main point of the passage is what makes these studies important or worthy of reporting. Ultimately when the purpose of the passage is to present research, the main point of doing so is to express to the reader the implications or importance of these studies, which ultimately is its findings: platypus locate their prey using their bill.

18) the findings of a study are stated (main point) and a description of the recent studies that produced these findings are described (purpose)

We are looking for an answer that must be true, and anything that CBT, CBF or MBF is the wrong answer.

The stimulus tells us:

scientists estimate the mass of the comets by their brightness

the material of which Halley's comet reflects 60 times less light per unit of mass than had been previously thought.

The scientists assume that the mass of a comet will be directly proportional to its brightness (1:1). So, if it was double the mass then we would see double the brightness. So, if we were to measure the brightness of Halley's comet, we would be assuming that the brightness we measure will be proportional to the mass of the comet (1:1). But if the material that Halley's comet is made of reflects 60 times less light per unit of mass than previously thought then the mass of Halley's comet is 60 times greater than previously thought.

or as B puts it: previous estimates of the mass of Haley's comet were too low.

Hi there,

After reading through this thread, I still thing the "big" point was missed. To understand why C is wrong, we have to first understand the "Evaluation" question type. "Evaluate" is too broad of a starting point. "Evaluate" the argument for what?

So, we need to know what kind of argument is being made to know what kind of evaluation is needed of it:

If it's a causal argument, then we need to evaluate its causal merit. So, for example, you would ask questions that test for alternative causes.

If it's a comparative argument, then we need to evaluate its comparable merit. So, for example, you would ask questions that test for incompatibilities.

In this case, it's a Rule/Application argument.

Rule:

The World Bank’s “Doing business” report ranks countries in terms of ease of doing business in them by assessing how difficult it would be for a hypothetical business to comply with regulations and pay taxes.

Applicaiton:

Since the last report came out, our government has drastically simplified tax filing for small and even mid-sized businesses. So, our ranking will probably improve.

If it's a Rule/Application argument, then we need to evaluate its applicable merit. So, for example, you would ask questions that test for inapplicableness.

(D) tests for applicability in that the answer to this question would make the premise more or less applicable to the finance minister's prediction depending on the answer.

(C) does not test for applicability. Regardless of the answer to question C, the financial minister's application of the rule would still be appropriate and therefore question C would not help us to evaluate the argument.

For evaluating question, we should be mindful of the type of argument being presented.

In this case, I would call this a "Rules: Application" type of argument.

Rule:

The World Bank's "Doing business" report ranks countries in terms of ease of doing business in them by assessing how difficult it would be for a hypothetical business to comply with regulations and pay taxes.

Applicaiton:

Since the last report came out, our government has drastically simplified tax filing for small and even mid-sized businesses. So our ranking will probably improve.

We can make sense of the right answer by being specific of what sort of evaluation we are meant to be making. So, to be more specific, of what kind of "evaluation" we are making I would rephrase the wording for this question as such:

The answer to which one of the following questions would help most in evaluating the finance minister's application of the rules set out in the World Bank's "Doing Business" report?

(D) is the right question to ask because the answer to it would help us assess whether the finance minister's prediction was made based on the appropriate application of the rules set out in the World Bank's "Doing Business" report.

Argument: Polls designed to discover the opinions of the national population would have less accurate results if census participation became voluntary because the participation rate in a voluntary system would be lower than in a mandatory one and census data needs to reflect the demographic characteristics of the national population.

Summary: Voluntary census would less accurately represent the national population than a mandatory one because a voluntary census would have lower participation rates than a mandatory one.

Assumption: different levels of participation would change the demographic characteristics of the dataset.

(C) the voluntary census data would differ in demographic characteristics from the mandatory census data

If we negate the NA, the argument should fall apart.

(C) negated: the voluntary census data would not differ in demographic characteristics from the mandatory census data

If the demographic characteristics of the two datasets are exactly the same, then one dataset would not be more or less accurate than the other.

Bad explanation^

No, (B) is incorrect because it would be a misrepresentation of what the stimulus is saying. Not all risky medical procedures deliberately stop the patient’s life function. The argument is very specific: procedures that deliberately stop the patient's life function are those that a medical team can be guilty of manslaughter for.

No, (A) incorrect is because it would be a misrepresentation of what the stimulus is saying. Not all medical procedures deliberately stop the patient's life function. The argument is very specific: the only procedure considered manslaughter is those procedures that stop the patient's life function. (A) is too broad.

Since the doctors deliberately stop the patient's life functions, then if these functions do not resume following the procedure, the medial team is technically guilty of manslaughter.

According to this argument, what key element qualifies it as manslaughter?

The fact that it was deliberate is what makes it manslaughter.

1) Subjects guessed correctly less than half of the time

2) if they guessed that the next image would always appear at the top, they would have been correct most of the time.

Inferences:

Most of the time, the image appears at the top according to (2). Therefore

subjects guessed the top less than half of the time according to (1).

Put these two inferences together and you get (D): some of the subjects guessed that the next image appears at the bottom of the computer screen but were incorrect.

Proof:

If most of the time, the image appears at the top and most of the time the subjects guessed incorrectly, then they must have at least sometimes guessed the bottom and been wrong.

I think a great way to get good at LR is by creating your own parallel reasoning. :)

Investigator: Our team found the suspect's fingerprints near where the victim's body was found. Moreover, the suspect texted the victim a threatening message prior to the murder. Therefore, it is likely that our suspect was the culprit who murdered the victim.

The investigator's argument depends on the assumption that the suspect:

(A) had some mental health issues

(B) was in the vicinity when the murder took place

(C) was not friends with the victim

(D) was the only person to have a motive to harm the victim

(E) has no other explanation as to why their fingerprints are at the scene of the crime.

While A,C,D and E would all be cited against the suspect and could be enough to sway a jury to convict, the only answer that must be true to rightfully convict is (B). No matter how enticing any case can be made in favor of the suspect's guilt, if it is established that the suspect has an air-tight alibi then they could not possibly be the murderer. No matter how suspicious someone is, they simply cannot be in two places at once.

In the same manner, we can say that for the argument to work, it must be true that the tool was in the region 5,000 years ago. If the tool was not there 5,000 years ago then what if it was brought there from an entirely different region that had entirely different raw materials and used the tool for an entirely different purpose? Then the fact that the aboriginal people had a similar tool and use it in recent times to make birchbark canoes was coincidental. Coincidental in the same way that a suspect fingerprint is at the scene of the crime.

We attack flawed questions by identifying the assumption made between the premise and conclusion.

Premise: Polls predict that the majority party, which supported the bill's passage, will lose more than a dozen seats in the upcoming election.

Conclusion: (Therefore) the recently passes highway bill is clearly very unpopular with voters.

Assumption: the majority party is losing seats in the upcoming election because they support the bill's passage.

(A) says the reasoning in the legislator's argument is flawed because it gives no reason to think that the predicted election outcome would be different if the majority party had not supported the bill.

In other words, the legislator assumes without warrant that the majority party's support for the bill is directly causing the predicted loss of seats in the election.

Flaw: We must assess what flawed assumption the author is making by identifying the way in which the author jumps from premise to conclusion and articulate why that is wrong.

Premise: Other survey results have confirmed one study which found that the more frequently people engaged in aerobic exercise, the lower their risk of lung disease tended to be.

Conclusion: (Therefore) Aerobic exercise has a significant beneficial effect on people's health.

Assumption: Correlation means causation. Correlation can be purely circumstantial. For instance, what if people who tend to engage in aerobic exercise are the same kind of people who are non-smokers?