So is it safe to assume that the difficulty level of the questions tracks, or typically tracks, the level of engagement such that the argument description amd matching questions are most/usually most difficult?

Okay so thinking more on why B is correct if (referring to my precious post) the crux of the conclusion is referring to "...a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation.", the actual definition of intuition is direct perception of truth, fact, etc independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension so if we assume computers are capable of doing this in making "...an immediate intuitive response to a new situation.", then I can understand answer B being correct.

Is this reasoning correct?

This looks like an old post but I had the same issue where I chose A with B as a contender.

I understood the conclusion to be: **"...for _this reason_ computerized expert systems cannot be as good as human experts."**

Now, I also took _"this reason"_ to be referring to the statement, _"through experience, a proficient person gradually develops a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation."_

I think this is what trips up most people on this question because this statement about a repertory of model situations allowing an _immediate, intuitive response to each new situation_ seems to be the crux of the conclusion. This was what led me to see answer A as making what I thought was a small assumption in originality=intuitive response.

I see now that we cant make that assumption.

However, if what I have above is indeed the crux of the conclusion (repertory.. that allows an immediate, intuitive response...), I still don't see how B can be the correct answer. I'm thinking even if B were true, it wouldnt hurt the argument because it still doesnt show it "_allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation_". Help!

For anyone else like me who chose answer C, i found AllezAllez2's explanation in the forums very helpful:

From your explanation, I actually think your reasoning for C is much more a direct attack on the premise than what answer E says.

You say that C implies the "card game could not have allowed for an accurate reading," but isn't that just discrediting the premise?

E in fact allows the card game to test memory and perception. E says that the card game does test memory and perception, but that it is unable to distinguish memory and perception between 30 and 80 year olds. Maybe the card game was actually designed to test the difference in memory between 2 year olds and adults. So of course 80 year olds are able to play the game just as well as 30 year olds. That doesn't mean if the game was significantly harder, the 30 year olds and the 80 year olds would continue to score the same.

For me, the reason that C is wrong is because it doesn't actually tell us anything about the two groups (those in their 30s and those in their 80s). It just says we don't really know about memory and perception. Well, how can that help us to discredit the claim made in the conclusion? Maybe they're interrelated in a way that in fact helps the conclusion? We don't know. There is no information to push us one way or another.

(https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/72713)

I first answered B but then picked E because I felt B only explained WHY the rate for those triple trailers was lower- because the rate represented a much smaller population than the national rate. I guess I didnt make the next step of thinking the author was making an invalid comparison? If so what kind of issue/attack on the causation is going on here? Is it one of pointing out there is "no relationship" between A and B?

I felt like the causal argument in this question was harder to see than in the others. I also dont quite see what kind of attack on that causation answer B gives. Can someone explain?

Just wanted to say I came here with almost the same question- only the word I was wondering about was "because". (More specifically, how it is used in PT37,sec2,q12, answer E). After reading comments here, I assume "because" should be treated the same way as "since" (as they prettymuch mean the same thing).

However, I suspect that premise indicators like "since" or "because" can be used WITH necessary/sufficient indicators, which can confuse people, such as in the case of the question I cited above where the combination ["when" X... "because" Y] is used. Maybe an expert can back me up on that but hopefully it helps.

So I think I had the conditional in the stimulus doagrammed correctly, but what tripped me up was what to do woth each of the answer choices.

Only when I saw JY's explanation dod I realize how each answer was basically a 2-part answer with one part where the govt restricts something and the other part where the govt doesnt restrict something. Only then I saw how they fit the conditional from the stimulus.

Selected C the first time around but on BR went with A. Overlooked the fact that like JY said, it addresses the aftermath of sugar's effects and does not address discouraging it's use.

Question: in answer A, is it okay to make the (what i thought was) small assumption that "health costs" implies that sugar is harmful?