The study could be weakened if group B also had nutritious breakfast elsewhere (at home or plant B workers bought them on the way). Strengthening options would eliminate the possibility of such weakness.

The best would have been that group B as a whole did not consume nutritious breakfast.

However, even if Plant B workers had nutritious breakfast, if only some of them had it, then the overall balance of the samples are closer to having no nutritious meals.

Thus, few plant b workers having nutritious breakfast does not deter the sample to represent 'no nutritious meal group'.

Very tricky answer to choose given that the first thing that comes to mind is that no one from plant B should be eating nutritious meal. However, if they did eat, few (like 3 out 10000 people) eating nutritious meal wouldn't disrupt the sample (representing the group of not having nutritious meal); it would be an anomaly that doesn't influence much.

When I eliminate C, I had to remind myself that there's a difference between the phenomenon and its implication.

The phenomenon cannot directly support M's conclusion. However, it is the implication (what will happen in future) that supports M.

Conditionality =/= Causation (Similar to 48.4.11)

DC6 corr S

DC6 some /S

/DC6 some S

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

There is no causal relationship between DC6 and S

The failure to establish conditionality doesn't mean that there isn't any causal relationship between DC6 and S.

label NF --> mistakenly believe has fat

mistakenly believe has fat --> (state NF --> may label NF)

= mistakenly believe has fat + state NF --> may label NF

1--> 2

2 --> (3 --> 4) = 2 + 3 --> 4

AC A: /2 --> /1

AC B: negation of /2 without /1 + /2 does not trigger anything

AC C: belief is not factored in

AC E: 2 + 3 --> 4

P: Methane is a compound that falls apart when hit by the UV in sunlight

C: Any methane in Mars have been released relatively recently

AC B: Methane in mars is eventually exposed to sunlight.

This must be true because if some of old methane were h never hit by the sunlight (=never gets to be broken = never disappear from Mars' atmosphere), then the scientists must have detected methane from million years ago, instead of just finding the relatively recently released methanes (which I assume have not yet been hit by the UV in the sunlight).

AC D: This is not necessary because recently released methane being exposed to sunlight doesn't alter the fact that methane was released relatively recently.

I found this question similar to 61.1.20 (EKG Cardiologists Question)

In that question, because computer program identifies a higher % of cases that later developed into heart attacks than did the cardiologists, we should use computer program instead of cardiologists when interpreting EKG.

In that case, weakening AC highlighted how cardiologists were better at identifying significantly higher % of the cases that did not develop heart attacks later.

In this question, it is similarly argued that because Sartore's reviews are more likely to help people learn the movies that they would enjoy, Sartore's reviews are better than Kelly's.

But what if, Kelly's reviews help the reader identify the movies that they won'y enjoy?

Then, this piece of evidence would immediately weaken the conclusion. Therefore, to strengthen, this must not be the case. Both cases of identifying movies that the readers would enjoy and would not enjoy should be more identifiable when reading Sartore's reviews than Kelly's.

26) 35~37; the rate of oxygen use in different parts of the brain, which stands as a measure of metabolic activity

This line demonstrates directly proportional relationship between metabolic activity and rate of oxygen use. Thus AC C is correct.

1: Problem

- brain scan =/= pictures of mental activity

- neuroimaging —> modular theory of mind

- components + localized

2: Module theory of mind = questionable (Opp)

- WU: general mental activity distributed throughout the brain

3: But is it really wrong?

- light up specific part (this is against WU)

- fMRI = subtraction => only some are responsible

- seemingly plausible = AP; will take it down soon

4: Conflict

- Subtraction results proves the argument it is set to prove wrong

Main point: brain scan =/= pictures of mental activity => problematic, whether neuroimaging requires modular or general mental activity

Author’s tone: Neutral (brings up alt explanation but it also highlights the contradiction)

Passage Tone: Descriptive

Author voice indicator: seemingly plausible (43), But (54)

1: Rawl + Author oppose OPA

2: Rawl’s theory

- fair procedure can settle what justice should be

3: Fair procedure

- Veil of ignorance for fair outcome

- Absence of information that could bias, fair outcome

4: Rawl’s generalization

- thought experiment

- self interest also leads to fair outcome

- no one lose, so I don’t lose either

5: Limitation (*unfortunately = AP)

- 4 is true in context of primary goods

- But this idea is redistributionist idea (=utilitarianism idea); some can be sacrificed to give majority the benefit

The author extols Rawl’s theory overall but does qualify it by mentioning 'unfortunately' in the last paragraph.

Author's perspective indicators: seems (6), but (8), ingenious (19), unfortunately (51)

Preference of majority of students is in replacing the current one, not in bringing back the old one.

They might be unaware of their options.

Easier way to understand this is by understanding the difference in conclusions .

Difference in wage = hire freely = x social friction

Static or slow wage change = social friction

See how the two conditions (hire freely and static wage change) lead to two opposite conclusions? In order to preserve this, it must be true that hire freely =/= static wage change.

Personally, I thought 5000 years would be a pretty long time but learning that cultivation started 12,000~13,000 years ago, I was immediately able to justify B.

P: To reduce underage drinking, encourage pledge not to drink

P2: /D --> pledge

D --> /pledge

C: Pledge was successful! (pledge leads to reduction)

But how?

If people that are pledging are non-drinkers from the beginning, no reduction in underage drinking happened. They didn't drink even before they took the pledge. If the pledge is not targeting minors who are already drinking, the reduction is not possible.

There's a clear difference between pledging not to drink (when you are already not drinking) vs staying away from drinking after taking the pledge (when you have drank prior to pledging)

6) AC C

P: People want primary goods

C: Everyone agree to have at least the minimum amount of all these goods.

Wanting primary goods =/= wanting every kind/category of primary goods.

The flaw in this question is really similar to 46.3.23 (Ignorant, Repeat History) question.

Here, it's

A → B

C → D

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

/A + /C → /B + /D

But what if /A + /C → B + D ?

46.3.23

I → R

R

----------

I = (R → I; /I --> /R)

But what if /I → R ?

In these questions, premise is given as A → B, then the conclusion appears as /A → /B. The common flaw is that the author is consistently forgetting to address the possibility of /A → B.

The flaw is assuming that /Sufficient → /Necessary when in fact that /Sufficient → Necessary remains a possibility.

Conclusion is assuming that tendency has greater bearing on recovery than the amount of laughter.

But who says this is true?

What if: people who have tendency to laugh can laugh "little" and still be laughing more than people with less tendency to laugh + laughing a "greater" amount?

What if: that (amount of actual laughter) is what precisely leads to recovery, not the tendency?

I think what helped me solve this question was being fully aware of the comparative and absolute concept.

People with tendency to laugh can laugh "little" but this amount can still be greater than the amount of laugh that people with less tendency + greater laugh produce.

POE

B,C,D's conclusion strength: prob =/= must (certainty in stimulus)

E: hikers =/= all microscopic organisms

Some theorists “LC should strive tb VN”

LC cannot be completely VN

——————————

some theorists are mistaken about goal

Cannot completely VN —> cannot strive tb VN (mistaken about goal)

/A —> /B

Simply, confirm /A --> /B

Prephrase: What if they were forced to choose a better one from aesthetically displeasing works.

AC B: Most of the preschooler paintings were pleasing

Neg. Most of the preschoolers paintings were displeasing

Thus, abstract work could have seemed relatively pleasing because the preschoolers works were displeasing. Even if the participants thought both works were displeasing, because the preschoolers’ works are worse, they chose the abstract painting to indicate that it's relatively better. And choosing the better (abstract) from two displeasing works, does not indicate that abstract paintings are aesthetically pleasing.

I correctly prephrased that the participants could be choosing a better work out of the two displeasing works but I couldn't match it to an AC at first.

Blocking type of NA answer and the key concept was comparative (aesthetically better) vs absolute (aesthetically pleasing)

P1: Fragments of virus pass on.

P2: Z and D has the virus in the same location.

P3: Two diverged at least 25 million years ago

C: H virus is at least 25 million years ago

The premise is inferring that Z and D have a same ancestor who had H virus and passed it on to them respectively. Now, the H virus in Z and D are in the same location of chromosome.

AC C: If virus inserts itself into chromosome (=/= not inherited), it occurs at a random spot.

But we know that Z and D have the H virus in the same location, thus it is likely that they were not inserted the virus. Thus this piece of information strengthens the inference that they have inherited the H virus from the same ancestor instead.

Drawing a comparative conclusion knowing only one aspect (NMP) of the darker roast is not valid.

We need to consider the other downsides or the total acid/caffeine from drinking darker roast. Despite NMP counteracting the acid, we don't know what the total acid/caffeine level of the darker roast is. Maybe it contains 100x caff than lighter roast and thus has much more acid. This will tear down the conclusion.

Therefore, we need to evaluate how much caffeine/acid the darker roast has in total in order to draw a valid comparative conclusion.

I found this similar to 65.1.20 but just more convoluted in the language.

Reminds me of 80.2.3

Conclusion: Value the gift card is more than the actual gift.

Premise: WTP for the gift 2/3 of the actual cost

What if how much you are willing to sell the mug is super high because you value the product so much? (Endowment effect)

=> Proves that you value the gift at a higher price than the actual price.

M: ‘must return to natural way of living’ claim becomes irrefutable

C: natural for humans to use technology

They are disagreeing on what is natural

M: natural = before tech usage

C: natural = using tech, now

Because M considers tech natural, it cannot be unnatural.

AC C: Max has a different conclusion ('must return to natural way of living')

Conclusion: Switching (prohibition to legalization+regulation) will remove the health risks

AC E Negated: Using PED at unsafe levels DOES create big advantage.

Then people will continue to use it at unsafe does because they will do whatever to gain advantage and unsafe does is giving them more advantage than safe doses.

Thus, the conclusion falls apart. It's not getting rid of health risks by switching since athletes will continue to use PED at unsafe level in order to gain maximum advantage despite the switch.

Higher H corr Change of being diagnosed with AD

=> Risk of developing could be reduced by converting H into something else (Less H, Less AD)

Conclusion reveals that the less H, the less AD and this relationship implies that the conclusion to believe H causes AD to be true.

A way to weaken this is by claiming that the causation is reversed.