meowwwwwwwwwwwwww

If they alter the environment in ways that aid their survival then their amongst the most highly evolved species.

However, its a quite common of species to alter the environment in ways that aid their survival . (negation)

With all small degree of assuming it can be inferred that by the author statement he is implying thatIt is not the case that (If they alter the environment in ways that aid their survival then their amongst the most highly evolved species).

He, then uses an example to further strengthen his position against the commonly accepted notion expressed. (he is precisely using a counterexample here).

The author goal is to deny the position being challenged of its validity, thus proving it incorrect. It could very much be that most, some, few, none, or nearly all species that alter the environment in ways that aid their survival then their amongst the most highly evolved species. Anyways, to do that he uses a specific example of a species that is not highly evolved and is still able to aid its survival via altering the environment. Answer choice D precisely assumes this. A counterexample (planktons) is presented to challenge the commonly held position that If species alter the environment in ways that aid their survival, then their amongst the most highly evolved species. This example is used to support the authors position that this view is incorrect.

C is basically saying that a general claim under which a specific process occurs is further supported via considering specific cases that corroborate with the processes discussed in the general claim. Does the author do this?? Does he say that this claim is generally accepted, and then goes on to state specific cases that corroborate with that claim? NOOOOO wrong.

Whittaker: If they dropped out during first year at some point, then their second year never existed. if a student drops out at some point in their first year (something that empirically exists/existed, was a real thing), then there can not be a such thing as the number of medical students that dropped out before their second year because their second year was never a real thing.

Whittaker: There is no such thing as the number of medical students that dropout before second year. If they dropped out, then their second year never existed.

C →D

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

A

Hudson: There is no such thing as me not becoming rich. Because if my first million dollars is not in the bank then I will not die.

C → D

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

A

How can you conclude that you will surly acquire wealth, from the fact that if your first million dollars is not in the bank then you will not die? Just because you know that you will surly not die until you put a million in the bank, this does not imply that you will be wealthy. Is one million the standard of being considered rich? we don't know? What if you get a life sentence and by the time the world ends and you come out of jail, and banks cease to exist you will never be wealthy. Here, Hudson is drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the premises (which are accepted are true). The author is providing us a conditional statement that C → D and is concluding A.

How can we conclude that prior-to-second year dropout statistics of medical students cease to exist, from the fact that if a medical student drops out then they never had a second year. Just because they dropout and their second year ceases to come to existence, this does not imply that dropout statistics prior-to-second year does not exist. They very much exist, Just like the potential for Hudson to never acquire health. Similarly, Whittaker is drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the premises (which are accepted are true). The author is providing us a conditional statement that C → D and is concluding A.

Other analogies similar

I will lose my virginity, because until don't find a girlfriend I will remain 18 years of age.

The number of employees that quit before their 3 month mark does not exist, because if an employee quits then their 3 month mark ceased to exist.

See how all these arguments the author is providing us a conditional statement that C → D and is concluding A.

I will be the best, because everyday I use 7sage

I will get a 170 on the LSAT, because Everyday I commit 3 seconds to studying

P: Complying with new regulations is useless. If the new regulations were in effect during last years fire, the outcome would have been the same, because it does not address the underlying cause.

Q: If a regulation can potentially save money it is useful. If obeyed some accidents would be prevented and when there is a accident money is wasted. You can infer that when an accident is prevented due to compliance with the new regulation it can potentially save money.

A.) This answer choice is correct: expanding the underlying considerations for evaluating the usefulness of complying with the new regulations. P considers considers the regulation useless based on only its potential to be ineffective in preventing last years fire. Q comes in with a new consideration for the regulations usefulness. That is if the regulation prevents money from being spent it is useful. If complied with this regulations prevents accidents. Has these accidents taken place they company would've wasted money regardless of injury.

E.) This answer choice is wrong, we can't assume P overlooked this distinction. Second Q does not respond via pointing to a important distinction made that was overlooked by P. This answer choice would be right if Q said: Although it is true that last year's fire and injuries could not have been prevented even if this regulation was in effect. However, we must not fail to notice that if this regulation was in effect during last year's fire the severity of the injuries and fire sustained could have been potentially lower. Anything that can potentially lower the severity of an unwanted occurrence is useful.

Answer choice B may be better if it had said. Reinterpreted the results of the proposal discussed by Frankie.?

(Premise) Recent figures indicate that consumers are purchasing more durable goods then before.

(Major premises) This indicates that they expect economic growth in near future.

(Conclusion) Therefore the economy seems to be headed out of recession.

E.) the statement "consumers are purchasing more durable goods then before" provides support for a subsidiary conclusion which presumes that these figures indicate that consumers expect economic growth in the near future, and from this the conclusion is drawn which states that therefore the economy seems to be headed out of recession. This makes it the primary piece of evidence from which the conclusion is drawn. If this statement was removed, then we could not presume our subsidiary conclusion, which means that we can not presume our real conclusion.

People who get sick form a meal often develop a strong distaste to the food with the most distinctive taste in the meal. This explains why children are especially likely to develop strong aversions towards some foods.

A.) Weakens

B.) Children are unable to see the health impacts of the foods they consume. How does that explain why they develop strong aversions to foods? If they knew it was good for them would they not develop such aversion? To many assumptions we don't know.

C.) children tend to have a more acute (sharper) sense of taste then adults, and become sick more often then adults. these 2 facts put together help strengthening the conclusion as to why children are especially likely to develop strong aversions towards some foods.

D.) what

E.) what

The average price of new cars has steadily increased in relation to average individual income. So if you look at it on a graph the line representing "average cost of a new car" becomes sharper then the "average income" line as the 25 years progressed.

From this the author assumes individuals who purchase new cars today, spend a greater amount relative to their income, then did their counterparts 25 years ago.

A.) Wrong, because it doesn't weaken the argument. It could still be the case that the same husband and wife buying a new car now spend a greater amount of money relative to their income, then they would've 25 years ago. Second were focusing on individuals purchasing cars not families.

B.) Knowing that the number of cars sold now is the same as the number of cars sold 25 years ago does nothing to weaken the argument.

C.) Accounting for inflation makes no difference. If income has significantly declined when accounting for inflation. Then it is also the case that car prices have significantly declined. Both are valued in money. However the relative relationship between new car prices and individual income still exists. The average price of new cars has steadily increased in relation to average individual income. Conclusion still fallows.

D.) Irrelevant.

E.) Our argument assumes that individuals are paying the new increased average car price. Answer choice E comes and says a smaller percentage of individuals are buying new cars today then they did 25 years ago. If individuals purchasing new cars represent a specific portion of total car sales, then we can't be sure that they pay the increased avg price for new cars. What if the average is skewed because rental companies that represent 60% of new car purchasers pay an extra 70% of the cars regular cost to assure they receive it first. Answer choice E weakens the support relationship of the argument, by providing us with a data set, that was not considered by the argument, therefore weakening it. To strengthen the argument the answer choice could've said that new cars purchased by all entities and individuals are the same.

1980: 5% of all 18 year-olds were recruited

1986: 10% of all 18 year-olds were recruited.

1980: 7% of high-school students dropped out

1986: 14% of all high-school students dropped out

The increase in the percentage of high-school dropouts is correlated with the increase in the percentage of 18 year-olds recruited in the army.

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

Since 18 year-olds are either dropouts or graduates, the increase in the percentage of 18 year-olds recruited in the army is caused by the increase in dropout rates.

^^^^

W E A K E N

Answer choice (C) weakens this because it states that between 1980-1986 there was a sharp increase in the percentage of 18 year-old graduates recruited in the army.

Lets say TEN 18 year-olds were recruited in the army in 1980 which represents 5% of all 18 year-olds in 1980. 2 were graduates and 4 were non-graduates. This implies that 20% were graduates and 80% were non-graduates.

Now lets say SIX 18 year-olds were recruited in the army in 1986, which represents 10% of all 18 year-olds in 1986. Answer choice C tells us the percentage of graduated 18 year-olds recruited, has increased within the total percentage of 18 year-olds recruited. Then it must be that the percentage of non-graduated 18 year-olds recruited has decreased. Say TWO graduated students were recruited and 5 non graduate students were recruited. This implies that approximately 34% recruited were graduates and 66% were non-graduates.

This ultimately weakens the support structure of the argument. How can this correlation imply causation if the percentage of non-graduate students has decreased from 1980-1986? The percentage of non-graduate 18 year-olds recruited in 1986 is less then it was in 1980, so it most likely is not the case that the high drop-out rate is correlated with the increase in the percentage of 18 year-olds recruited by the republic.

answer choice E increases the possibility that it was not another factor that attributed to the decrease of teenager car accidents inn Grandville since in the areas around it, the amount of teenage car accidents increased.

Was rc hard

The passage clearly states that pigeons are released 100s of kilometers away prior to

bringing up that "bee" concept. Can't we assume its stated there to discredit the less convincing theory as per the authors opinion, in the fallowing paragraph and that 100s of kilometers refers to long distances. That inference is reasonable in that if we can assume 1 minute is a referent to "short time". Why can't we assume that the latter is a referent to long distances.

#help (Added by Admin)

Most people blood pressure raise when talking.

Extroverted peoples' BP goes up at a milder rate compared to introverted peoples' BP, for whom speaking is more stressful.

C: This suggests that the increase in BP when talking is a psychological process rather then a physical process.

A.) This answer choice is saying that the medications designed to lower do not inhibit people from experiencing blood pressure fluctuations when speaking. We aren't which group its referring to? I meaning know that BP medicating is not effective in inhabiting BP fluctuations caused by speaking, does nothing to strengthen reasoning in the argument.

D.) This strengthens the argument. Can we agree that speaking is a communicative measure and sighing a piece of document is also a communicative measure. Well they noticed that deaf people BP increases when conducting this communicative measure (signing) and when it is moving its hand freely its BP does not increase. This further supports the idea that communication (speaking) is a psychological process rather then physical.

Maximum total Utility 100% assured → only in pure free economy.

Other economies may be able to achieve it under 100% certainty.

Obviously then a country that has a highly controlled economy and is not trying to being a pure free economy system, is not acting in a way that is most likely to bring about maximum total utility.

Flaw: The author assumes without warrant that because its not a pure free economy then it is not acting in a way that is most likely to bring about maximum utility. What if considering all other relevant social factors country X has a 1% chance of achieving a pure free economy

while they have a 85% chance at achieving another type of economy that that gives a 98% chance of maximum utility. The odds of the latter option provide with a greater likeliness at accomplishing maximum utility.

Answer choice precisely states this. The author inappropriately assumes to in trying to bring about a condition that will ensure the achievement of the end (maximum utility), one must use the way most likely to achieve it pure free economy.

Today's business world requires X type of learning rather then getting tied up with the Y type of learning of business schools.

Business schools seem unable on their own to tear themselves away from the outdated and less effective Y learning structure, to move closer to today's realities.

Business schools often focus to much on hypothetical rather then real cases.

They are slow to adjust to the needs of businesses.

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

Thus businesses should allow business executives to set curricula for management trainees that could be taught by teachers.

Anticipate:

Wait what? where did business executives come from? We don't talk about these business executives being capable to writing curricula? why should these guys write the Curricula and not someone else? WTF Ohhhhh the author is assuming that business executives are more capable of adhering to these flaws in the curricula rather then those academics who teach this Y learning crap.

E: Exactly. business schools are slow, to respond, the hypothetical scenarios they use are shit. Oh ya we also know they not capable of making this change alone. So we need business executive. WHY....you can't read between the lines dumbass.... they more capable, more insightful, more able, in these valuable areas that the academics in business school don't have.

Team criticized for for our enthusiasm in response to our success and the opponents failure. (context)

SC BUT this behavior is Hardly unprofessional, as the critics have claimed.

P: look at professionals in this sport, they are even more effusive (marked by the expression of excessive emotion or enthusiasm)

C: Thus the critics should leave the team alone and lets the players enjoy. In other words the critics are wrong and should shut the fuck up and move on.

Anticipate: How are critics wrong? because professionals exhibit this type of behavior and to a greater degree it makes the teams behavior not unprofessional??

OHH the coach interprets unprofessional in the formal sense, in the sense that athletes have a formal professional standard of behavior that they should/must fallow. Like not wearing a different teams jersey during a real game. But its more reasonable to assume that the critics mean its improper or unprincipled behavior. In that he is using unprofessional in a more universal context. I mean generally not being enthusiastic isn't a professional requirement of conduct in a profession, regardless of this, the coach is still vulnerable to the claim that his reasoning, for the critics being wrong stems from a wrongful interpretation of the word unprofessional.

Takes for granted = assumes

B.) the lawyer assumes that the project could only fail if Congleton wanted it to

CONCLUSION: So you lied, when you said Congleton wanted the project to fail, because reasonably her actions you described are for the betterment of the project.

If the lawyer did assume this, then there is no reason for this whole trial, we would surly know of Congleton motives. Second this isn't the flaw the argument is making. The flaw is that the lawyer is concluding with certainty (not considering other relevant factors) based on a set of premises that somewhat support the idea that Congleton did not want the project to fail, but are not sufficient to draw for the conclusion.

If the lawyer did assume that the project could only fail if Congleton wanted it to then we would fully know the answer.

2 possible worlds: project either failed or did not fail

assume this conditional to true

if project to failed then Congleton must've wanted it to fail

Failed → Congleton wanted fail.

Congleton wanted fail → Failed

if it failed then we would know Congleton wanted fail, on the same token Congleton wanted fail.did not want it to fail then it would not have failed.

Only happiness is intrinsically valuable. other things are valuable in so far as they contribute to happiness.

SOME OTHER PHILOSOPHERS argue that that the fact we do not approve of a bad guy being happy, shows that we value happiness only when its deserved. this shows we find something else as intrinsically valuable other then happiness.

BUT the happiness people deserve is by the amount of happiness they bring.

C.) The judgment that ones deserves to be happy is understood in terms of happiness. This claim is supported by the first and last premises.

D.) This is perhaps inline with the authors opinion which the essayist disagrees with so its wrong.

B: WHY?

C: Your assuming it was to maximize speed. But it wasn't, it was because early type writer would type to QUICKLY and it would break it. So it was to slow down type writers by making a awkward sequence.

B: okok, so if all these limitations have long since vanished why the fuck does the keyboard still exist.

A) well because its in demand by people who learned to use the standard keyboard layout.

b.) Confirming its existence is not explaining the reason for its existence.

interested

Etiquette helps social harmony.

Many people criticize etiquette because they believe it has no beneficial effects.

These same people hold that social harmony is GOOD

The jump from good to beneficial I saw in a slightly different way. If etiquette assists in exercising social harmony which is concept that describes people are living in harmony with each other, they are living together peacefully rather than fighting or arguing. Obviously helping social harmony is to a degree is beneficial to society, it helps bring more peace and less fighting.

A.) These people may not be holding contradictory views, since we don't know if they are aware of this impact that Etiquette makes. If we knew that these people are aware that Etiquette helps social harmony, and they still these people criticize etiquette because they believe it has no beneficial effects. Then it would be a contradiction.

There views may be contradictory to us or the author, but to say that they have or hold contradictory views is illogical.

That's like saying a family living on a remote farm does not believe that science is beneficial to society in any way. But science is beneficial. Also they believe their computers are beneficial. This family believes life is a simulation and nothing is real and that we are merely a figment of a greater beings imagination. No physical laws exist, No science nothing is real. Only praying to this greater being is beneficial, because if you pray enough he will grant you with things that are beneficial. Like how I pray at night to somehow miraculously get a 170 on test day. Also they have no education, don't know anything else except this concept. To say this person has contradicting opinions is hypocritical, since they are in line with each other.

A: James donated money.

Many of James family members believe he has done no good.

But his family members think that donating is a for a greater good.

C.) It does support that they are mistaken about the benefits it has to society considering it assists social harmony, which is beneficial.

47% cat household has degrees

37% dog household has degree.

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

people with degree more likely to live in cat household

????

But what about the actual #

what if there is 100 cat house holds and 1000 dog house holds total?

that equates to 37 total cat household and 470 total dog house holds.

So someone with a university degree would 13x more likely come from a dog household then a cat.

Hence answer choice B exposes this possibility.

The right conclusion would be perhaps to say that:

Considering that these surveys are representative of the general population of the groups discussed, it can be concluded that the propensity of the those households with cats are more likely hold a degree then household with dogs.

Stim:

Swimming pools should be fenced to protect children. It is more important to teach children swimming.

By the same principle while we should restrict children's access to the soft drinks and candies advertised on television show directed at children. It is more important to .....

The principle: a preventive measure (fence) for an issue is good, but teaching a countermeasure (swimming) is far more effective in this median and more...

A.) Does not match fallow from the our principle.

B.) I initially thought that B was correct however upon closer examination its apparent that knowing this will not protect the children from soft drinks and candies in the same way swimming protects children from drowning. its application is limited to advertising and TV only, where as learning to swim protects children in rivers, pools, ocean ect...

C.) Fantastic like learning to swim, knowing how to make good nutritional choices that are beneficial to ones health will assist reduce the effectiveness of junk food advertisements and beyond on children.

D.) what

E.) what

interested

P: Book publishers have traditionally published few books of intrinsic value, though these books were unlikely to make profit.

P: recently there has been a decline the amount of these books published.

C: Thus publishers are more interested in making money then publishing books of intrinsic value.

A) If book publishers have always been interested in making money, this implies their interest to make money was high during the traditional period and recent period. This factor is of no relevance because it has been consistent. More so because it has no relevance to the argument.

B) There has been a notable decline in the quality of books written in recent years. Lets say during the 1980s book publishers came across 3000 books that met their standard of quality and were ultimately published. In 2020 they came across only 2000 books that meet their standard of quality and were ultimately published. Now lets say 10% of books during the 1980s were books of intrinsic value, this implies that 300 books that were published were books of intrinsic value. In 2020 the same 10% of books represent books of intrinsic value. This includes only 200 books. This give rise to the possibility that the overall pie is smaller and is the reason for the fewer number of intrinsic value books being published in 2020. This therefore, weakens the current the current hypothesis that the reduced number of books being published is the result of money hungry publishers.

C) The ability in the past for books of intrinsic value to unexpectedly obtain sizable profits does not weaken the argument. Unexpectedly making money denies the quality of intention, and therefore does nothing to hurt the argument.

D) wrong

E) wrong.