A is strictly a defender, like a slightly stronger SA.

What if PD makes us crave iron?

A: Well, most people genetically predisposed to PD have the same if not less iron in their diets than people not genetically predisposed.

Great, I can't weaken this conclusion by saying "but PD makes you love iron", because A outright states that that is not possible.

Does it conclude that reducing your intake of iron prevents PD VALID? No, but does it strengthen it (by defending it)? Yup.

C - this destroys the link between P->C. Your reason is comparative: GS has more corrections. Well you know why? Because GS actually addresses the readers complaints of errors more than their competitor. In that case, you can't say that the comparitive premise actually proves that their new hiring is ineffective.

D - trap and wrong. who cares if you have more editors? You can assume it both ways: you have more editors because 1. you are more careful to prevent mistakes (which still only minially helps) or 2. you just make so much more mistakes than your rival that you NEED the editors and they don't.

Pretty fuzzy what the conclusion is. IMO the last two sentences support each other as the conclusion.

Conclusion - We should give them more votes because then the families with kids will have fair representation.

What if the parents arent voting fairly for the kids? They just use the vote to screw around their own agenda?

E gets at that.

A - we don't need it to be directly proportional. if we were to challenge the gap for "too little attention" we could say that "the attention needs to be at least somewhat related to the number of children not represented". Too strong.

D - It's not fair to favor the group with votes over the group without votes. Okay, but we aren't talking about whether the lawmakers are being fair, we're talking about whether or not this proposal would result in fair representation for these families. It can be fair to favor the group with votes (adults) over the children and its still the case that "we need get these voters additional votes for their kids".

A and D make this question difficult for sure.

Eliminated E in the beginning because I misread the conclusion as "children would be fairly represented", so the grammar in E did not make sense.

B basically implies that those with trauma and PTSD WOULDN'T have high cortisol (since its a defense mechanism), which challenges the conclusion that trauma causes cortisol

B basically implies that those with trauma and PTSD WOULDN'T have high cortisol (since its a defense mechanism), which challenges the conclusion that trauma causes cortisol

this question only works because of the "thus clearly" clause. Without that it would be a premise, and we would take it as true.

Because it says "thus clearly", it suggests that something is supporting that claim, namely the first sentence. But just because they had the insurance for 25 years doesn't mean they "clearly recognize" that its good.

AC D then makes sense: They didn't choose the plan - well. that's means that for some, they had the plan involuntarily for 25 years, which suggests that they do NOT clearly recognize that its a good plan.

i had the thought: "cant they not choose the plan yet still recognize it as good?". Yes they can, but that misses the point. The point is that whether they recognize it as good or not depends on an arbitrary assumption that DEPENDs on AC D. If they choose the plan, then we have strong reasons to believe that they recognize it's value. But if they DID NOT voluntarily choose it, then you can argue both sides: 1. they liked it (consistent with the subconclusion) or 2. they didnt (wrecks the subconclusion).

like i said, this hinges on "thus clearly". LOGICAL INDICATORS

23. if you chose A you probably were looking for an AC that replaces "wherewithal", not to replace "the lack of wherewithal"

if you read A as "lack experience beyond what is reflected", it sounds good

but the Q doesnt ask you to do that

it asks you to find an AC with the same meaning as saying that the judges lack the wherewithal

thats D: substituting questionable research results

got this wrong in BR:

negation of A actually does nothing

- sure, consumers will not care if its labelled, but that doesnt stop the food producers from still being scared and refraining from selling

negation of D does:

- if other places dont even behave the same way (fear), wtf are you talking about?

Completely did not understand how Q24 worked.

Function of the "observations". Why did we bring it up?

Paragraph talks about the causal mechanism of the sandslide hypothesis. We know that the sandslides can happen, and the observations tell us that if true, UT might have been a vegetated area.

So basically, using present observations to make inferences about the past.

A: watching craftsman make pottery to inquire about the past works.

*Example to show

1. Whole to part subset change flaw

2. causal attribution flaw*

Canada saw the greatest increase in car crashes following the legalization of drunk driving.

Furthermore, most car crashes occurred in provinces/states that had the most drunk drivers.

Thus, a city that legalizes drunk driving would probably not decrease it's car crash rates.

Flaw 1: Canada-State-City

There's a correlation of car crash and drunk driving. Fine, but you cannot pin that onto a single city. What if Toronto smokes marijuana and drives, and has insanely bad traffic that leads to more deaths, therefore pulling the average of the nation/state up? Then a city like Vancouver may not increase crashes if they legalized drunk driving. In fact, it's entirely possible that while Toronto is having car crashes over blinding traffic lights and psycho jay-walkers, Vancouver has been decreasing their crash-rate by letting people drink and drive.

Flaw 2: Causal Attribution

- its correlated, but maybe its because car quality was deteriorating.

A: inefficiencies (because of drunk driving?) nope.

B: In the US were were also increases in car crashes. Okay, maybe its because they ALSO have the same laws?

C: States that sell liquor after the law was enacted had fewer car crashes

- okay, but we're talking about a different subset now. we need to talk about the individual city

D: Any city that has the least crashes are those that are the most lenient with drunk driving.

- city level

- opposite correlation that is actually BETTER than the correlation in the stimulus

- the stimulus uses a nation-industry level correlation to support a business conclusion. this AC introduces a business-level correlation to contradict a business-level conclusion.

E: We don't care about what happens in the future

not a traditional SA question

the arg concludes that if youre never deprived and get everything you want you will never become practically intelligent.

Why? We would need something like "developing practical intelligence means you need to be deprived" or "if you're not deprived your cannot develop practical intelligence"

A- help of others? dont care

C - the best way?

E - we dont care what happens when they are deprived

B - if a skill is acquired it must be needed

- acquired is in the sufficient condition, which means that we can contrapose and make it the neccessary condition and conclude that a skill will NOT be acquired (which is what we need)

"if a skill is not needed it wont be acquired"

whats the skill? practical intelligence. it's not needed because if you're never deprived of anything, you dont NEED to discover means to ends (because youd already have the ends).

since you dont need PI, you wont acquire PI.

D - we dont care if someone is or isnt a person with PI, we need smt to help us conclude that it would lead them to NEVER develop it

My gym only has gym bros and old men.

25 percent of my gym drink protein powder.

But only 15 percent of the old men drink protein powder

But our aggregate average is 25 percent. Then how do we get here?

Only if more than 25% of the gym bros drink protein powder.

THE WHOLE: 25% of people drink protein

Old men: only 15% drink protein.

Wrong: "10 percent of gym bros drink protein" - you cannot add percentages from potentially different sized subsets.

the argument simply assumes that having a big size is more valuable/important for defence than armor.

What if the armor is actually good enough that we don't need the size?

B - ocean stickles don't need the big size.

that explains it. you were assuming the entire time that because armor impedes growth, that it must be bad. maybe armor impedes growth because we don't need it or that armor is just better.

C is also too weak: "not uncommon" is suchhh weak language. it's common for people to use live models in their paintings.

so... what if the self portrait guy just didnt want to use live models so used himself?

so... what if the self-portrait guy WAS the live model? (whether you say yes or no to this matters)

C is like an evaluate AC; depending on what you assume, it will weaken/strengthen the argument

if you turn it into an evaluate AC: "Could artists at the time use themselves as live models?" (Yes = strengthen, No = weaken)

Compare this to D, which has NO evaluate aspect, just simple weakening (albeit not super strong)

D: It's a violation of etiquette. Well, it's a bad thing to do, and maybe people did or did not follow the norms, but this decreases the likelihood of an artist using themselves as a model, whereas C is completely open-ended -

It's like an RRE question:

Phenomenon: This self-portrait guy appears in this historic battle painting. Why?

Conclusion: The self-portrait guy painted the battle scene.

C: its common for people to use live models (of themselves or others? still not the best RRE AC)

D: its a violation of etiquette to use yourself, so it's probably not the same guy (better RRE, eliminates one possibility)

E doesnt do anything because it states "widely applied"

if its widely applied (to both low and high ceiling houses), yet we still see the correlation that air con houses with low ceilings sell well, we can't attribute that to the insulation.

no more funding for basic research, less likely basic advancements

no additional research from non-profits --> less likely basic advancements -> no prestige from basic advancements

why non profits? has to be the case that either we need non profits or that profits arent helping

D - if non profit doesnt increase → funding from basic research wont increase (→less advancements)

A is a trap and wrong because you can disagree with someone's premise but agree with their conclusion.

Mark: The sky is blue because my dog barked

Mathias: But the dog also barks when the sky is dark. (He can still agree implicitly).

What gives away C is that speaker B says "murder should not be a defining characteristics" of this film.

5

D: not according to the semi-new hypothesis

according to the OG hypo, maybe (not starving)

new? (better hunting) prolly not

Subtitles are not inherently bad, its bad if its incompetent. has mistakes or used for censorship. If we follow 6C the author should have no problem with that. I guess with D the danger is that the author never says to use nothing. In fact, he never talks about the consequences of using nothing versus subtitles, so we cant assume that nothing is the option

JY's explanation for question 6 A is wrong. He misinterpreted that line to suggest that the author would prefer a title swap over a subtitle dubbing, but the author states that they're both bad and that IT (title swapping) creates FALSE EXPECTATIONS.

Okay... but who says the Z and J couldn't have independently have received the virus AFTER their descendence?

A (what i chose): virus can affect the evolution (okay... i mean kind of helps i guess?) and influence the likelihood of them diverging

- but which way? what if it reduces the chances of divergence? the assumption is arbiturary.

C: the virus attaches at a random spot.

- that's a BIG coincedence.

- which is more likely? that the H and Z got the virus at diffeent times and had it perfectly at the same spot? or is it more reasonable to believe that the virus only attached to the ancestor ONCE... then passing it on?

- this strengthens it because the probability of the randomness = the same is close to none.

"unreserved" has a negative connotation to it

if it was unreserved, the author would claim that this new method would be THE BEST thing ever to evaluate truth

A - they already attempt, they just suck at it

B - no evidence

C - anti-passage, they didnt try to explain

D - having a problem =/= cannot be true

E - cannot account for the strength → deficient

I don't love E, but its the only one that really is supported. Would have personally prefered a compound sufficient condition with the particle accelerator as well, but E is most supported.

"at least" signals that its a biconditional.

imagine: you can come to work if you did one of three things. so if i did one of three things, i could come to work.

NOW:

you can come to work if you did at least one of three things.

the "at least" signals that there may be a bidirectional relationship. if the author did not mean to make it a bidirectional, why would he say "at least"? If you do not interpret this as a bidirectional, it doesnt make much sense, because you're just failing the sufficient condition of interpreting the work for ONE national tradition.