Awesome story! Thanks for sharing.

I have a very similar problem (specifically in LR)!! Would absolutely love to know how people have tackled this.

Question type/task: Flaw

Paraphrase:

Even tho HC is associated with HD, some people with HC never develop HD and some people who have developed HD don’t have HC [P1].

Above avg conc of lipoproteins were found in people with HD whose HD wasn’t attributable to other causes [P2]

Dietary changes that affect cholesterol levels have no effects on lipoproteins [P3]

So, there’s no reason to make dietary changes to prevent HD [C]

Cookie-cutter analysis:

A is correlated with B

C is also correlated with B

D that affects A has no effect on C

So, you shouldn’t change D to prevent A

What I’m looking for: Clearly, there is some mistaken correlation/causation going on here with the lipoproteins "causing" HD, but that’s too easy for question 19. The author extrapolates to say that since diet doesn’t affect lipopotein conc (in cases where HC doesn’t cause HD), there’s no need to change diet. It’s an overgeneralization flaw and ignores what was stated in the first and third premises. There could definitely be some cases where changing diet (notably those cases in which HC, which is affected by diet, causes HD) can help one prevent HD.

A) This doesn’t matter to the core of the argument.

B) It does though, in P2

C) Yes, bc clearly the conclusion about dietary changes would fall apart if the HC part were acknowledged. Dietary changes affect HC which affects HD. This could be turned into a weakening AC by saying: “HC, which is affected by diet, contributes to HD.”

D) No, outside the scope

E) We don’t need the arg to say that

Mine too!!

Once you see that A is right on this question, would you advise moving on and coming back to eliminate the other Acs once you finish the other questions? Or, is it better to quickly eliminate the other ACs before moving on to the next q?

I'm struggling with numbers and percentages questions. Is there a way to search through the question data bank for these types of questions?

This is awesome!! Thank you, and best of luck at Cornell!!

Paragraph 1: Vernon helped dispel the myth that Africans were of little value to American society besides their labor by showing how Africans were the first cultivators of rice in the U.S., rather than Acadians (the group rice cultivation had previously been attributed to).

Paragraph 2: Vernon’s study asks why Africans grew rice in an economy primarily focused on cotton production. She comes up with two answers for during and after slavery. During slavery, rice cultivation made sense bc plantation owners sometimes ate rice and it gave slaves a time to work independently.

Paragraph 3: After slavery ended, it made less sense to cultivate rice bc African Americans preferred corn and the tenant system required payment in cotton only.

Paragraph 4: But, Vernon answers this paradox with the answer that African Americans transformed the land not to grow rice, but bc they saw it as an extension of themselves. Cultivating rice could also have been a symbolic political act against the U.S. gov’t.

Main Point: Vernon’s study of African American rice cultivation helps dispel the mistaken myth that Africans provided little value to America besides their labor.

Tone: The author approves of and supports Vernons methods and conclusions.

Viewpoint: old historians vs. Vernon

Structure: P1-historical phenomenon and Vernon’s rice study, P2-Vernon’s methods, question, and 2 answers, P3-why second answer perplexing, P4-second answer elaborated upon

Is this still happening?

Commentary: I think I missed this during the timed test because I didn’t understand the argument and jumped into the answers too quickly without a solid prephrase. I’m pretty sure I didn’t flag it because I thought I understood it during the test. Shame on me for letting this fairly easy question fool me twice.

Question type/task: Strengthen/PSA question; need to find the AC that when added to the stim, the argument becomes stronger

Paraphrase:

Most business ethics course/textbooks just consider specific cases and principles

For instance, students get lists of ethics and role play/discuss in class

But this is limiting bc it doesn’t provide a framework for understanding specific principles and should include abstract ethical theory

What I’m looking for: We need an AC that says that learning abstract ethical theory provides a framework for understanding specific principles. The argument doesn’t explicitly say why abstract ethical theory is important for understanding specific principles, so adding this premise strengthens the conclusion.

A) “A moralizing approach that doesn’t recognize multiple types of ethical rules is unacceptable” ??? this is no way comes close to my prephrase and is outside the scope of the argument because we’re not looking at moralizing approaches, we’re looking at how to make business ethics courses better

B) “Alien personae” How does this support that we should include abstract ethical theory? Yeah, it might trash the current technique, but it doesn’t bolster the alternative to include abstract theory

C) We really don’t care about people’s obligations to behave ethically--scope issues

D) If abstract ethical theory is the most appropriate of any context for understanding specific principles, then of course business courses should include abstract ethical theory so students can understand principles--this is very much a strengthener and therefore correct

E) This doesn’t do anything for the argument that we need to include abstract ethical theory. So what if ethics courses should familiarize students with a wide range of principles and applications? If anything, this suggests that maybe abstract theory shouldn’t be included to focus more on exposure to principles. Also, acquainting students with something is very different from teaching. Eliminate.

Analogous argument:

Most undergrads, when stressed, turn to drinking hard alcohol. For example, the weekend before reading period, students will drink for three nights straight. But this doesn't do much to reduce stress and should therefore be replaced with doing yoga and drinking tea.

Assumption: it must be that yoga and drinking tea are better at relieving stress than drinking alcohol is.

Question type/task: Parallel flaw, need to identify the flaw first! And then use that to narrow the ACs

Paraphrase:

Stat analysis is a common tool in the phys sciences but it can only be used to explain event that can be replicated to the last detail.

Since human mental events never precisely recur, stat analysis can’t be employed to explain them

So, human mental events can’t be explained by the physical sciences

What I’m looking for: The flaw in this argument is that just because stat analysis can’t be used to explain human mental events, that doesn’t mean that the physical sciences don’t have another way to explain human mental events. The argument makes a jump from part (stat analysis) to whole (physical sciences) with respect to a specific example. We need an argument that also generalizes from part to whole and denies something with respect to a specific example.

A) Comp modeling is used to try to explain the way wind resistance affect bike movement. To use comp modeling, the phen must be predictable. But wind resistance isn’t predictable. So, the way wind resistance affect movement of bikes can’t be explained by comp modelling.

The problem here is that there’s no part to whole flaw. Eliminate

B) If one explains how music affect emotion states of someone, one appeals to psych of emotion. Psych of emotion can only be applied to cases involving human beings. Some music is comp generated. So the way music affects the emotional states of a person cannot be explained.

This is some bad conditional reasoning. Not the flaw here.

C) The best way (I don’t like this already!) to explain why an object has a color is in terms of interaction of light and matter. It is sometimes impossible to find out what kind of matter makes up the object. So, the color of such objects has nothing to do with the interaction of light and matter.

Definitely flawed, but also bad conditional reasoning, not parallel.

D) To figure out which explanantion of the origin of the universe is correct, we need to know about the first moments of the universe. But due to the immense time since the beg, it is impossible to get this info. So, it is unlikely that any explanation is correct

Conc is too weakly phrased and also doesn’t have the part to whole flaw

E) A good way to explain hist events (phys sci) is to construct a coherent narrative (stat analysis). To construct a narrative, you need to know a low of details (stat analysis and be able to replicate many details). Virtually no details can be known certain very ancient hist events (human mental events). So no hist explanation (phys sci) can be given for these events (human mental events).

Perfectly parallels!

Fantastic post, thank you!!

Another one is PT15.S2.Q20

Passage A

Paragraph 1: Music that is complex but also coherent/harmonious will likely to have a positive effect on the listener.

Paragraph 2: Music is like language because for notes, like words, need to be strung together coherently to affect someone listening.

Paragraph 3: Continuous sounds tend to be relaxing bc people are relaxed when they know what to expect (evolutionary example).

Main Point: Complex, coherent music generally has a positive effect on the listener.

Tone: Neutral

Viewpoints: simple vs complex music, coherent vs. incoherent music

Structure: P1-how diff music affects people, P2-analogy of music to language, P3-relaxing effect of music and why

Passage B

Paragraph 1: Various elements of music can create certain expectations in a listener. These expectations often determines ones musical emotions--the more one expects something to happen and the longer they have to wait to satisfy that expectation, the greater tension is built up and the more intense the emotions will be. When the expectation is met, one relaxes.

Paragraph 2: People search for an explanation when expectations aren’t met. Negative emotions occur when expectations aren’t met and vice versa for positive ones.

Paragraph 3: Emotions to music also relate to familiarity. People tend to feel most positively when they’re acquainted with the music but not too familiar, and it’s not too new. Also, preferences correlate with one’s musical experiences.

Main Point: Various elements of music determine how people feel about the music.

Tone: Neutral

Viewpoint: negative vs. positive emotions with respect to music traced throughout

Structure: P1-musical emotions and expectations, P2-expectations further explained, P3-complexity/newness and musical emotions

Relationship between passage A and passage B: Both passages have to do with how people feel in response to listening to music. Passage A focuses more on the complexity/coherence of music in positive emotions as well as continuous music having a relaxing effect. Passage B focuses more on musical expectations, novelty, and the resulting emotions.

Paragraph 1: Proponents of the TO theory of copyright believe that all copyright/IP laws can be explained as if those ideas, music, etc. are extensions of tangible objects, which depends on the assumption that all copyrightable ideas can be made tangible and that ownership of an object confers rights on the owner.

Paragraph 2: Retained rights are when the owner of something transfer that thing to another person and still has some rights over it. While retained rights is common in many areas of law, when it’s applied to IP, theorists argue that copyrighting the thing allows people to keep some rights of their work.

Paragraph 3: The major advantage of the TO theory is that one does have to deal with problems associated with owning abstract ideas (bc in the TOT world abstract ideas don’t exist). But, the TO theory is limited because it can’t cover some fleeting works (like live broadcasts) and doesn’t acknowledge that coming up with ideas is more important than putting them into form.

Main Point: The TO theory of IP rights is ultimately limited because it doesn’t cover all works of IP, and it fails to acknowledge that the creation of ideas can and often times is more important than putting that idea into form.

Tone: critical of the TO theory of IP rights

Viewpoint: proponents vs opponents (the author) of the TO theory of IP rights

Structure: P1-definition of TO theory, P2-further explanation of TO theory, P3-one qualification and then 2 limitations of the TO theory

Paragraph 1: Philip E revolutionized computer science’s ability to solve real world problems by looking to nature for inspiration (MP). For instance, he paralleled computers so that they could predict the flow of oil underground. Only supercomputers that worked sequentially did this previously.

Paragraph 2: Modeling an oil field requires that thousands of computers at different locations are connected and able to make calculations without interfering with one another (the major problem). To overcome this problem, PE modelled the computers on the math principle underlying tree branch networks.

Paragraph 3: PE has also developed a computer system that will allow us to predict future global weather patterns and based it on bee’s honeycomb patterns. PE believes that looking to nature will be valuable in overcoming future computer problems.

Main Point: PE has developed a new paradigm based on natural systems that allows comp scientists to solve problems that were previously difficult to solve.

Tone: the author admires PE

Viewpoints: sequential computers vs. parallel computers

Structure: P1-introduction of PE’s innovation in using nature to solve comp problems, P2-explanation of one way PE applied nature to computers, P3-implications

Paragraph 1: Traditionally, archaeologists learn about ancient history by looking at remains and texts. However, this wasn’t really possible for the study of ancient textiles made by women bc remains tended to disintegrate or were discarded; ancient texts didn’t really mention how women made textiles. Against all odds, archaeologists have learned a lot about women and ancient textile-making. (prediction: next paragraph will discuss how archaeologists overcame these obstacles)

-Last sentence is the main conclusion.

Paragraph 2: Two main reasons: new technology that allowed archaeologists to better study/date/analyze textiles and philosophical revolution that made it so all remains were preserved rather than discarded. (prediction: next paragraph will talk about how this has influenced the field)

Paragraph 3: Archaeologists have also been able to recreate the actual production of cloth, which has allowed them to make better inferences about what went on in the past. For instance, this new tech allowed them to discern which Athena statue was adorned with the cloth (it was actually the small one).

Main Point: Archaeologists studying ancient textiles made by women have greatly benefited from using unconventional techniques and new technology to overcome the barrier of not being able to rely on traditional archaeological sources.

Tone: the author seems to think the developments are positive

Viewpoints: author’s view, no one else really speaks

Structure: P1-Problem; actually not a problem for this subgroup even though we’d think it should be; P2-explanation of some techniques and shift within the field that allowed subgroup to overcome problem; P3-another way the group innovated around the problem

In this case, the additional information you're referring to is an inference. Basically, we can infer from the stimulus that the extent of amino acid decomposition in eggshells (which can be used to obtain the dates of archaeological sites) is based in part on the temperature of the climate in which the eggshell is decomposing. What would happen if the climate of the area where the eggshell is decomposing fluctuated greatly overtime and this fluctuation was unsuspected? Well, then the date arrived at by using this decomposition technique is probably not very accurate.

This type of AC is very cookie cutter in MSS questions--it requires you to piece together premises in the stimulus and arrive at an inference, so the additional information you're referring to isn't necessarily "additional;" I like to think of it as something that follows from the premises in the stimulus.

Something to note: the standard of proof for MSS is not as high as MBT questions. For instance, there could be some case in which archaeologists used this technique, the climate fluctuated without them knowing, and they still arrived at an accurate date. This less than 100% certainty is a hallmark of MSS questions. For MSS questions, you just need to find the AC that is more strongly supported by the stimulus than the other 4 ACs.

Commentary: Wow, this is a tough q. It’s time consuming to just parse this out and understand it. This is definitely a question I should skip and come back to at the end. A helpful tip is to use the author’s opposition to OPA in the first sentence to guide what the author is driving toward. It is also helpful to treat MSS questions like many RC inference questions--maintain that high standard of proof!

Question type/task: MSS

Paraphrase:

-People who object to the proposed hazardous waste storage site by invoking really unlikely scenarios in which the site fails to contain the waste safely are ignoring the significant risks associated with delays in moving the waste from its present unsafe location.

-Bringing this down to earth with an example: “people who oppose the proposed landfill (with hazardous waste) site by claiming that the site pollutants could leak into waterways (an unlikely scenario) are ignoring that delaying moving the materials could pose significant risks.

-If we wait to remove the waste until we find a site to contain it safely, the waste will remain where it currently is for years since it is presently impossible for any site to meet the criterion

-Since there are no sites that meet the safety criterion presently, if we wait to remove the materials from the landfill until we find a suitable site, the waste will stay where it is for years.

-But keeping the waste at the current location for that long clearly poses unacceptable risks

-Keeping the waste where it is poses unacceptable risks

What I’m looking for: This is the type of MSS question in which a set of premises that is driving toward the conclusion that the waste should be moved to another site. We know this bc the author opposes the other people’s argument by saying they overlook...

A) Too strong, we can’t conclude this.

B) Should it?

C) Exactly my prephrase.

D) We don’t know this.

E) Wayyy too strong.

Hi Mark! I'm interested as well. I'm scoring in the mid-160s right now.