For AC C why can't we take the statement that "it will be highly desirable to other collectors in the future" as failing the necessary condition of "not just for its value as an investment?" I thought perhaps she is looking at it with potential investment in mind thereby failing our necessary condition so she shouldn't buy.

#help

P: Money Disappears due to loss of belief

C: Money does not exist

SA: If Money Disappears due to loss of belief then Money does not Exist

or if Money exists then it cannot be that it Disappears due to loss of belief

Put more generally if something exists then it cannot be the case that it can disappear with the loss of belief.

When legislators discover that some public service is not adequate their most common response is to give them more money. Because of this, the least efficient bureaucracies are the ones most commonly receiving more money.

P: Legislators discover public service not adequate→most commonly receiving an increase

C: The least efficient bureaucracies→Most commonly receiving an increase

Missing premise: The least efficient bureaucracies→Legislators discover public service not adequate

This is very much like an NA but works as a MSS question type as well because we know that in both the conclusion and the premise we have most commonly receiving an increase so the two ideas in the sufficient condition can be conflated.

High Resolution Summary:

Paragraph 1: The theory of gravitation is explained. This theory does not currently explain the structure of the universe considering the mass. Cosmologists hypothesize that 90% of missing universe is attributable to dark matter which provides gravitational force to cohere huge structures.

Paragraph 2: What is dark matter? One plausible hypo is that dark matter is made up of neutrinos of which there are 3 types. But the problem with this hype is the assumption that N's have no mass. If no mass then no gravitational force and no gravitational force means to particles cohere.

Paragraph 3: New evidence shows that N's can oscillate. Oscillation is possible only if they have mass.

Paragraph 4: Although the N's mass is small because they are so numerous we can explain 20% of missing universe. Although it doesn't explain all of the missing universe, this changes our view of the universe.

Structure: A theory is explained (gravitation) but in light of this theory something that is observable can't be explained (missing pieces of the universe). As a result hypo is introduced (dark matter). But there is an assumption that conflicts with this hypo. New evidence wrecks the assumption and is enough to alter our view of the universe.

MP: Discovery of neutrinos, although it doesn't give us the full explanation of the missing universe, can change our view of the universe.

Town A. has been heavily salting its' roads for 20 years and now has 100 ml of salt per liter. In another town which is similar to the way town A. was 20 years ago only has 10 ml of salt per liter. At 250 ml of salt per liter the water tastes too salty. Therefore, if we continue salting at present levels the water will be too salty over the next few decades. So, the argument assumed that town A started with 10 ml per liter as well just like the nearby town and the 90 ml increase is due to heavy salting. So, at present levels then in another 20 years we will have another 90 ml for a total of 190 ml per liter and then in another 20 years another 90 will make it 280 which is over the threshold. But if we assume that town A started with 90 ml and only increased by 10 ml in 20 years then in another 20 years it will be 110 and in another 20 years 120 ml per liter. So, it will take more than the next few decades to reach the threshold.

So, the conclusion says stop the trend of not using the lab equipment which is essentially don't use computers for lab experiments use actual lab equipment. So, why couldn't A weaken the support by saying so many rapid changes are taking place nowadays that the only way to keep up is to use computers instead of lab equipment?

#help

For Q 11, AC C was very difficult for me to eliminate and I think it is one of those things that is harder for non-native English speakers to pick up, the difference between The Central Theme and A Central Theme. I think from "Spanish poetry displays a kind of cultural conservatism - the desire to return to an ideal culture of the distant past," we can infer that it is definitely a theme but we don't know if it's a central theme and we don't know if it is "The" theme.

I sometimes feel like Starfire when trying to decipher grammar (if anyone watches Teen Titans). Here's The episode for comic relief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPSHQL6Zo74

Ok. So, humans are probably predisposed to paying more attention to certain kind of music because little babies are predisposed to paying more attention to certain kind of music. According to the argument the reason they are predisposed is biological in nature. One way to strengthen this is to say that since babies never heard any kind of music before, their predisposition could not have been due to them being exposed to it in the past. So, this eliminates one alternative explanation and makes the author's explanation of biological predisposition more likely.

I initially thought the gap was going from babies to all humans in the conclusion and chose A. AC A does not strengthen that predisposition is biological in nature. If babies, older children and adults all prefer this type of music we still don't know the reason for this preference, is it biological or cultural?

Premises: Television manufacturing plant has a total of 1,000 employees. On any given day an average of 10 employees are absent. When exactly 10 are absent production is at a normal rate. So, 990 present→Normal Rate.

Conclusion: Thus, the plant could fire 10 workers without any loss in normal rate of production.

This flaw is hard to see b/c the authors conveniently are not using the the words "absentee rate" which this whole argument hinges on. All companies have some sort of absentee rate for a multitude of reasons which we can't presume. Presuming that firing 10 workers will result in 990 showing up to work every day and maintain the same level of production implies that the argument thinks that the absentee rate will be 0 instead of 1% which historically been the case here.

A) This is saying that the rest of the remaining workers will pick up the slack and produce more televisions. I think this AC is almost describing the method by which the normal production will happen if 10 people are fired which is not what we need for a weaken AC. The argument doesn't care if the rest of the people don't see the light of day to maintain the same level of production or not. This is not the flaw.

B) Fails to show that absentee rate would drop if 10 workers are fired.

10 workers fired→Absentee Rate Drop

Yes, the argument failed to prove that 10 workers fired will automatically result in no absences since we need 990 for normal production.

C) Takes for granted that Normal Rate→990 present. The argument does not presume that The only way to maintain normal rate is to have 990 workers present.

D) This is what I chose b/c I assumed that firing any random sample of people could be problematic b/c we risk loosing people crucial to production. But the argument did not specify which 10 people will be fired, they may be the slackers who are fired in which case we still run into the problem described in B where absentee rate may not drop and we may not be able to maintain normal levels of production. I think this often happens with wrong answer choices where if you make an assumption one way it works perfectly well but then if you make an assumption the other way then the correct flaw in the correct answer choice still needs to be taken into account.

E) I don't think the argument takes this for granted. The argument takes for granted "absentee rate" not the number of people employed.

Premises: When faced with emotion provoking situations, repressors who unconsciously inhibit their emotions and non-repressors who consciously inhibit their emotions, both have the same response, their heart rates go up.

Conclusion: Inhibiting emotions causes their heart rates to go up.

So, with causation type of questions, I should be hunting for the gap in the correlation/causation logic and we have a specific blueprint to use for those. The conclusion is saying A causes B. Since there is a possibility that C causes B, we are blocking this possibility from existing which is AC A. And I think it doesn't matter whether they said repressor's or non-repressors in the AC as it is the same causation gap either way.

I chose E but I see now that E is irrelevant once you know what to look for. Whether the baseline heart rate of repressors and non-repressors is the same in situations that do not provoke emotions has nothing to do with our argument. If we negate AC E, "In situations that do not tend to provoke emotions, the average heart rate of repressors is not the same as that of non-repressors." This doesn't do anything to our argument and is consistent with our conclusion that inhibiting emotions causes heart rates to go up.

#help

AC A would still be correct if it said "Encountering and emotion provoking situation is not sufficient to cause repressor's heart rates to rise sharply" right? In other words this is also a necessary assumption because whether it's repressors who unconsciously blah blah and non-repressor's who consciously... doesn't matter because the bottom line is there may be another causal explanation and we are blocking it with one of many NA answer choice. Is that right?

Just for practice mapping out SA without the usual logical indicators.

P1: Person who has a doctorate in LA→Interested in improving intellect

P2: /Concerned with financial gain→Rarely hired by companies

C: Person who has a doctorate in LA→Rarely hired by companies

SA: Interested in improving intellect→/Concerned with financial gain

The argument is conflating "not concerned with financial gain that can be obtained as a result of hard work" with "not concerned with making money in the business world" which technically is not the same idea in my opinion because you can be concerned with making money as a result of minimal amount of work but it is by far the best answer choice out of the others.

That is an amazing achievement. Congratulations!!! You have been so valuable to me in my study process. You have a very strong GPA and with your score you have an excellent shot at some of the best schools. I understand about the psychological effect of having a "7" in your score and we all know that schools are heavily score oriented but if I were you I would probably weigh that decision based on what your average practice test score is now and whether or not you feel burned out. Based on my conversations with schools I don't think that, for instance, a one point difference between 169 and 170 would make that much difference especially since you will be applying pretty early in the process. However, if your practice tests average is usually much higher and you can go into the next test feeling relaxed knowing that you already have one awesome score under your belt than it may be worth it depending on your goals. This test is so incredibly stressful so it would really have to be worth it for me to go at it again.

That's my two cents anyway :)

Whatever you do, I think you will end up where you are supposed to be. So, happy for you :)

Coffee and Tea has M. and M. increases Vasopressin. V. causes blood clumping which is worse for women than men. Women also have higher risk of complications from angioplasty. So, if they have a higher risk of complications and Vasopressin is already higher for women than men, then tea and coffee might further increase their risks of complications. Therefore, no tea or coffee prior to angioplasty but really not prior to anything if you have any type of heart issue it seems to me but I will have to take prior to angioplasty as correct answer choice.

:)

I think this is bad causal reasoning flaw in reverse. Usually author will assume some sort of a causal relationship merely from correlation and here the author is denying causal relationship by saying antivirus programs did not protect computers against the virus because only 1,000 cases reported worldwide and our job is to identify that antivirus software might have caused/prevented more cases of damage.

I am still confused by this question. Definition of "results from" is If a situation or problem results from a particular event or activity, it is caused by it: So, to me AC B says Amusia is caused more from an inability to discern pitch than from an inability to discern timing. What do we know about what causes Amusia? Nothing, from what I can see. What if Amusia is caused by a blow to the head and then a symptom of Amusia is their inability to discern pitch. This is probably an English reading issue. Can someone please re-phrase AC B in a way that is the same conceptually but stated differently?

Our conclusion is: those with a tendency to laugh have greater ability to recover even when they laugh a little than those who don't have a tendency to laugh but laugh a greater amount.

What is our evidence for this conclusion? We know that laughter can help you recover. We also know that those who had a tendency to laugh to begin with had greater gains in immune function. So, the author says it must be this propensity to laugh that is helping them to recover regardless of how much they laugh. Wait, what if how much they laugh has everything to do with their recovery. You can't just ignore than fact and take for granted that it must be their tendency to laugh that is causing their recovery.

AC B: Fails to address that those whose tendency to laugh was greatest already had stronger immune systems. So, if they had stronger immune systems, are we to assume it is because of the immune system that they are recovering in which case laughter does not matter much. They can laugh a little and still recover. This is compatible with our conclusion and we know this argument is flawed and this does not point to why it is flawed.

AC C: Presumes that hospital patients have immune systems representative of the entire population. Our premises and conclusion are about hospital patients so it is not wrong to use them as our sample population.

AC D: Takes for granted that gains in immune system strength did not themselves influence patients' tendency to laugh. So, what does this really say, the author assumed a lack of connection between immune system and tendency to laugh when there may be a connection. So, let's say there is a connection between stronger immune system and tendency to laugh and author failed to take that into consideration. Ok, does this help me support or refute that those with the tendency to laugh have a greater ability to laugh even whey they laugh a little as compared to those who don't have a tendency to laugh but laugh a lot. No, this does nothing for my conclusion. How we obtained or enhanced our tendency to laugh whether it be via stronger immune system or not does not affect our conclusion.

AC E: Presumes that those whose tendency to laugh was the greatest to begin with recovered more rapidly than other patients. Yes, the author presumes this but did they recover rapidly because of their tendency to laugh or because they just laughed a lot. Misses the flaw entirely.

Wow, this question really tests your ability to stay on task and not be distracted.

Minor Premise: Since violent crimes are very rare

Sub Conclusion and Minor Premise: Newspapers are likely to print them

Sub Conclusion 2: Because newspapers are printing a lot of violent crime stories

Conclusion: The claim that there is a lot of violent crime is not true.

It was easier for me to rearrange the premises this way to see the circular reasoning. I didn't see it initially b/c I was focusing on Sub Conclusion 2 and the Main Conclusion which are not the same thing. But these premises are building on each other starting with a minor premise which is a restatement of our main conclusion.

Just for my own clarity. If we are to negate frequently consulted to not frequently consulted it is not correct to assume that it is rarely consulted because for instance we may have never consulted or at the other extreme consulted all the time. For AC E, JY says, not frequently consulted could just be sometimes consulted. The difference between frequently and sometimes is subjective, isn't it?

#help

This is an invalid appeal to public opinion which is a type of Appeal Fallacies. Just because most people believe something doesn't make it a fact. Opinions don't equal facts.

Prephrase: Post modernism views reject modernism views. Modernism views are seen as limited by the time in which they were created. Irregularity and chaos are now believed to be important as opposed to the belief in universal truth.

Therefore, there is no such thing as universal truth and there are lots of irregular events.

This is Appeal Fallacies flaw -- There is a huge difference between beliefs/opinions vs. facts. We can't jump from opinion to fact or from fact to opinion unless there is an appropriate expert to back it up.

So, all contemporary artists believe that their work can make many people more fulfilled. And our author is saying, no you guys are wrong, we already have tons of existing great works so thanks but no thanks. Well, the gap is what if some people don't have access to existing great works of art and they can indeed be more fulfilled by the contemporary artwork.

Now, AC E is tricky, the amount and variety of existing great artworks affects the degree of our fulfillment of contemporary works. So, for instance we have a million existing works and because of that the amount of our fulfillment of contemporary art is zero. I think this is already stipulated in the author's premises. So, AC E does not show us the flaw of the argument. We need an answer that points to the gap in the reasoning not something that is compatible with our premises.

I was between C and D but the main reason I thought C is wrong is not because of the "few" wording. So, what if few provisions are bad but most are not? It may still not be good enough to stop quibbling even though this is better than the traditional code. C also talks about "thus far been criticized." Just because someone thinks and criticizes something as un-necessary does not mean it really is un-necessary. Opinions don't equal facts. AC C is a much stronger weakening in that it's not a matter of someone's opinion. It is flat out telling us that problematic rules are being eliminated.

So, the columnist concluded that this practice (and we have to be very clear on what this practice refers to. This practice is referring specifically to the practice of US banning certain pesticides for use un US but then exporting them to other countries.) harms people's health not only in those countries but in US as well. Why? because these pesticides get imported back on agricultural products to US. So, what if other countries besides US produce and export this pesticide and it is very easy to obtain it from sources other than US then US people may end up with the same harmful agricultural products even if US stops exporting them. So, I think the main thing to catch was to understand that the practice in the stimulus is specific to US and in order to effect change in the global economy we need more than just a change in one member of that global economy.