I'm petitioning for this question, along with its sadistic writer(s), to be brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

What we're concerned with in this question is the interests of the advertisers and why mentioning their products in the magazine's articles would be against their interests.

Take B in its negated form. It's great for the magazine and its interests that it can give favorable mention of products without compromising its integrity and losing its loyal reader base or whatever. Awesome. Does that necessarily mean therefore that the advertiser's interests are no longer at risk? Maybe, but we'd be making an unwarranted assumption there. Also, what are those interests anyways?

It's AC C that touches on that topic in its discussion of the advertisers' values. It pretty much states, together with the argument, that the interest of the advertiser is that of the magazines, which is to ensure continued effectiveness of the magazine as an advertising vehicle, which can only be done, according to the argument, by making sure you don't turn off the reader base in the way described by the magazine editor. This is more important than mention of the products in the articles.

Negate AC C, and you have two situations:

1) a situation where mention of the products is equally as important as ensuring the integrity of the magazine, in which case it would be in the interests of the advertisers were the magazine to publish articles mentioning their products (this goes against the conclusion).

and

2) a situation where mention of the products is more important than ensuring the integrity of the magazine, in which case the advertising executive would probably say to the magazine editor here to just publish the damn article already and stop wasting his time.

see the first sentence re: what spectroscopic analysis revealed about the surface of Pluto

I think a useful way of doing away with C is by subjecting it to the negation test.

If it's not the case that the interests of the local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of the national party officials, then that leaves it open as to who or what it is that can serve their interests well.

It could be elected officials who do serve the interests of the national party officials that serve their interests well. It could be the mailman. It could be a banana. It could be their mothers. etc.

Moreover, what do any of those possibilities have to do with the argument? If their collective interests can be well served by my fictional dog Fido, then why is it, as the argument concludes, that officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office often fail to serve the interests of their local constituents? What does one have to do with the other?

The answer is nothing and so because the negation test as applied to AC C doesn't result in something that wrecks the argument, it is therefore not a necessary assumption of the argument.

Surprisingly and even shockingly, I didn't find this question hard at all; however, I was attracted AC C on an initial glance until I compared it with the language of E.

I didn't need to bring in any percentages and whatnot like JY did. Just a simple examination of the language of the passage and then the language of the two answer choices was enough for me to rule out C.

The crux of the argument in the stimulus is not the setting (i.e., context) per se, but rather what the setting/context requires of a psychotherapist - practicing psychotherapy on television while simultaneously trying to entertain audiences. It is in attempting to do this that the quality of the psychological help being provided by the TV shrink suffers; not because of some inherent quality or aspect of the setting it takes place in. That is why it shouldn't be done on TV according to the argument.

Further, the language is just too strong in C. I know we're dealing with the stimulus, but the AC would rule out practicing psychotherapy even within otherwise safe and clinical settings as there no doubt exists "a" chance in those settings that the help being provided could be of "less than high quality" - whatever that means. This just isn't what the argument is trying to get across.

It came down to B & D for me.

It was difficult for me at first to dismiss one or the other as I couldn't tell the difference and further, I never caught on to JY's bit about the shifting in the argument from times on a particular stroke to winning swim meets in AC D.

The way I saw it, though, was that the second premise in the stimulus and in B both possess this element of frequency. In the stimulus, the frequency of deaths from smoking-related deaths is higher than it is for highway accidents; many more people are dying from those diseases than they die from the accidents. Likewise, the frequency with which the pro musician is hired to play saxophone gigs is higher than it is for guitar gigs; she is hired much more often to do the former than the latter.

The teams' lap times being better overall(?) for the breaststroke in comparison with its times for the backstroke just does not have that frequency quality. The team doesn't get many more time increases for the breaststroke in comparison with its time increases for the backstroke. It's weird even to say such a thing, but I think that is what AC D would have to say in order for it to be a better match for the stimulus.

Given that it doesn't say that, however, I eliminated AC D.

The Tyler Durden House

I think the phrase being reinterpreted or rather, recontextualized, is "new diagnostic technologies"; not suffering.

I think they both understand suffering and use the term accordingly - they just disagree about whether that suffering is alleviated or impacted in any way by the use of new diagnostic technologies.

The Hospital Auditor doesn't see the connection between the two whereas the Clinic Administrator does.

The premises we are given in the Stimulus are "SOME DO NOT" statements, which are the negated form of "ALL" statements.

*Extinction events ←s→ /followed by known meteor impacts

meteor impacts ←s→ /result in extinction events

Therefore, No consistent link between two*

AC A reads:

If there is a consistent causal link between the two phenomena, then all major meteor impacts would be followed by mass extinctions.

It isn't the case that all major meteor impacts are followed by mass extinctions because we know, from the premises, that SOME DO NOT.

As a result, the necessary condition is failed in AC A, which allows us to fail the sufficient condition resulting in the conclusion presented in the stimulus that there is no consistent causal link between the two.

What's important to remember here are the lessons on Negation and the Binary Cut (think of the line illustration where none, some, most, and all are points/ranges on the line). Negation of ALL statements are "SOME DO NOT" statements and the negation of "SOME" statements are "None" statements.

Weakening the Sale Managers Argument:

1) Last year the total number of meals sold in the company's restaurants was significantly higher than the year prior.

Therefore,

Consumers find their meals desirable.

OBJECTION!!!!!

It's not the case that consumers as a group find the meals the restaurants serve desirable, but rather the single, and only patron of the 3 restaurants happens to be a 96 year-old trillionaire philanthropist with no heirs who decided that the best way to spend his money and final years was by buying meals from the 3 restaurants to feed the entire local homeless population on a daily basis.

He kept it local initially, but last year, he extended his philanthropic project by purchasing meals from the 3 restaurants to feed both the local homeless population and the homeless population of the next county over.

C says that the captive opossums were fed similar things to what is typically eaten by opossums in the wild - not that they were fed different things.

C has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Really think about the layout of the argument and write it down if you need to so you can see it laid out before your eyes.

1.) After releasing these endangered opossums back into the wild, it was observed that 75% of these, which were all being monitored, were killed by foxes, which are not native to Australia.

2.) opossums raised in captivity were fed a similar diet to that typically eaten by wild opossums

Therefore (conclusion),

The reason these opossums are endangered is not due to a scarcity of food like was previously hypothesized, but because they are getting mauled and presumably eaten by non-native predator species (i.e., the fox) that they don't have natural defenses against.

From the above, what bearing does inserting C into the argument as a second premise have on the argument? Mentioning it is almost like just bringing up a random fact about the opossum. Alone, it does nothing to strengthen the argument.

If, however, you insert answer choice E into the argument as a second premise, you strengthen the argument because what you're saying is no one can object to your conclusion on the basis of saying, "Hey, of course those opossums raised in captivity were killed by foxes - they aren't as savvy and slick as those born in the wild."

E is defending against that anticipated objection by saying wild opossums are just as bad as defending against those foxes as the group raised in captivity and let out into the wild.

Since it defends, it strengthens and that's why it's the correct answer choice. Moreover, it lends more credence to the idea (i.e., the conclusion of the argument) that opossums are endangered due to predation by non-native species.

For illustrative purposes:

1.) After releasing these endangered opossums back into the wild, it was observed that 75% of these, which were all being monitored, were killed by foxes, which are not native to Australia.

2.) Additionally, opossums that grow into adulthood in the wild defend themselves against foxes no more successfully than those opossums raised in captivity.

Therefore,

The reason these opossums are endangered is not due to a scarcity of food like was previously hypothesized, but because they are getting mauled and presumably eaten by non-native predator species (i.e., the fox) that they don't have natural defenses against.

In questions like this, I think it's important to analyze the answer choices in conjunction with the premises and conclusion that make up the argument. The right answer choice should be thought of as an extra premise that takes the argument over the edge and makes it better (in the case of strengthening questions) or sinks/begins to submerge it (weakening questions).

If you do this, it is clear how answer choice D does nothing at all to support the argument presented in the stimulus.

For purposes of illustration:

1.) Patients of a Dermatologist are each complaining about rashes on one side of their face

2.) The rash is occurring on the side of the face where the telephone is held (reminder: correlation doesn't equal causation)

3.) Telephones are used by most people in the industrialized world

Therefore,

Prolonged contact with phones is what caused the rash for these patients of this dermatologist

Who cares if telephones are used by most people in the industrialized world? Does that by default mean that the rash these patients of this one dermatologist are complaining about is caused by telephones? What bearing does this have on anything? It's just a random and useless factoid that does nothing for the argument.

If you insert answer choice B, by contrast, as a premise, you'll see how it supports the argument:

1.) Patients of a Dermatologist are each complaining about rashes on one side of their face

2.) The rash is occurring on the side of the face where the telephone is held (reminder: correlation doesn't equal causation)

3.) Contact between other devices and the patients' faces occurred equally on both sides of their faces

Therefore,

Prolonged contact with phones is what caused the rash for these patients of this dermatologist

If (premise #3) the patients were putting - for example - an electronic heating pad on both sides of their faces, but the rash they're complaining about is occurring only on the side of the face where the telephone is held (premise #2), then this supports (although does not necessarily guarantee) that prolonged contact with phones is what is causing the rash. It can't be the case that it was the heating pad or whatever else that is causing the rash because if it was, it would be occurring on the other side of the face where the telephone isn't held, which received equal contact time with the side of the face where the rash is occurring.

Scrap your plan and give the course it's due time unless you're already well versed in the material this test is based on. Even then, you'll need to familiarize yourself with the test itself and practice taking it.

Way too complicated of an explanation, JY.

The reason AC A is incorrect is because it doesn't address the fundamental problem, which is that despite increased international efforts to preserve the natural habitats of endangered species, we're still seeing an increase in the rate of extinction of these animals!!!

These international efforts and whatever form they take, which AC A can be considered as a particular form that falls under the umbrella of these conservation efforts, it still isn't enough to the speaker in the stimulus for turning the tide in the increasing rate of extinctions. Therefore, to them, these efforts to preserve, protect, improve, etc., these habitats have been a total waste.

AC B is the only answer choice that allows one to put distance between the premises and conclusion. It makes you stop and ask, "hey stimulus guy, I think you might be exaggerating. Have these efforts really been wasted like you seem to conclude if it's the case that, as a result of these efforts, some animals have been saved from extinction that would have otherwise perished?"

AC A also plays on our assumptions that going from studying alone to studying with a group of outstanding students is necessarily an upgrade. It could be, but it also could not be the case as well. Maybe it's a downgrade because the person has attention issues and gets easily distracted in the presence of others even if those people happen to be Nobel Prize Laureates in the particular subject matter.

The way I eventually got to the right answer choice was by paying attention to the structure of the argument and diagramming it. It helps to show visually where the largest gap rests.

I was hung up on AC D initially until I realized that AC D just further illustrates why the costs of the brand name drugs are higher than the costs of the generic drugs. This is already known from the premise and is further admitted in the second half of the conclusion. There's no real extra need for strengthening that portion of the argument. It's overkill.

However, where a gulf exists is in the first half of the conclusion - How do you get from the premises of the two drug types having the same active ingredients to them being equally effective? It is the space between these two ideas where the potential for building a bridge and strengthening the argument exists.

We can even weaken it from this point by - for example - stating that the generic drugs are coated with a particular substance that adversely impacts the effectiveness of the active ingredients contained within. Therefore, it wouldn't be as clear from such a hypothetical weakening answer choice that the generic drugs are as effective as the brand name drugs.

Couldn't this AC C be understood with reference to conditionality?

If the claim is that one can be at home and not in the house:

Home→/House

And the conclusion is that one’s being at home is not required(G2 indicator) for one’s being in one’s own house:

House→/Home

Then, If the conclusion were TRUE, which is the first half of the disjunction presented by AC C, the claim would certainly be compatible with the conclusion because if we negated the claim itself (and nothing seems to preclude us from doing so) then it would read House→/Home just as the conclusion does in its true and affirmed state.

If the conclusion were FALSE, however, then the negation of the conclusion would read Home→/House, which the claim is compatible with as it reads just the same.

This is the way I understand Truth and Falsity as they pertain to conditional statements. To say a statement is true is to leave it alone and uphold it whereas to say it is false is to negate it.

I think AC A (which I didn't choose - I chose C) is almost like a logic game. It's a bit difficult to parse out but this made it make more sense to me than the way JY explains it.

Recap of AC A:

"It is always laudable to do something helpful to someone, but not doing so would be wrong only if one has led that person to believe one would do it."

Translation up to "but":

Do something helpful to someone ---> Laudable (always is G2 necessary indicator)

Translation of second half:

not helping would be wrong ---> one misleads another

Now, the Jacksons didn't mislead Sara (negate the necessary condition of second part of sentence), and so it would not be the case that them not helping her would be wrong (negate the sufficient condition of second part of sentence). It wouldn't de facto mean it would therefore be the right thing to do - it just wouldn't be wrong the wrong thing. Thats all we can logically ascertain at this point. Further, we can now disregard this portion of the complex sentence entirely, which is really just an exception class/rule/etc. to a situation that we've logically found to be not relevant to the Jackson's based on the info in the stimulus.

What still remains to be assessed, however, is the first part of the complex sentence that is AC A. If the Jackon's were to help Sara and thus, do something helpful for someone, then it would be laudable for them to do so. Given the information in the stimulus, we see that the conditional statement translated from the first part of the sentence of AC A can rightly (or at least mostly) be satisfied.

D is wrong because we cannot rule out in a hypothetical world of infinite possibilities, there being some lone, strange soul who labors under the idea that a claim is true even though they know it to rationally/logically be false.

We might think such a person is at best strange, and at worst, insane, but nothing in the stimulus rules out the possibility of there being such a person.

Awesome - I got the answer right!

Not Awesome - it only took me 35 minutes and 20 seconds to land on the correct answer while still not being 100% sure it was the right one.

Poor Goku...

Demons, likely.

I watched the explanation 3 times and still do not have the slightest understanding as to how B is the correct answer.

Spent 20 minutes and 15 seconds on this question only to get it incorrect...wonderful!

Bumping - Anyone?