I got this right but C's explanation is terrible

There is no information about what the best exercise is for cyclists. You have to assume that feeling less depressed and angry are the only criteria for what makes something the best exercise for professional cyclists.

C says "For professional cyclists, the best exercise from the point of view of improving mood is cycling that pushes the pulse no higher than 60 percent of the maximum pulse rate."

It quite literally is from the point of view of improving mood, so this doesn't really make sense as an explanation.

We know the profits will NOT increase if downtown traffic congestion does not decrease...how do we know B is true? It does not address a necessary condition laid out.

This is one where overthinking is your enemey. B is completely irrelevant to the claim, who cares if cancer has other causes? Should I smoke cigarettes because too much Sun can also cause cancer? It doesn't do anything to the argument.

@stratford.douglas I saw D as actually strengthening the argument, as the disease is more contagious than the Athenians recorded. This would mean the disease spread more, I guess as I type I can see why its the wrong answer but it def does not weaken it

I understand why B is right, but I don't understand how D is not right. "More contagious than reported"....this would lead us to think the disease was worse than the Athenians thought...which would not weaken the argument that it "devasted Athens". Im sorry but I really question this one and I would prob complain if this was on the test, absolute nonsense. How does "actually it's worse than they thought" not straight up strengthen the claim? Of course the explanation is just "it weakens the argument" like come on man lol

Another example to almost laser focus on the conclusion. It tries to trick you to think that the conclusion is "worms couldn't have caused this".....but that's not the conclusion! The conclusion is that "it was likely geological process" - so we find the way to weaken that conclusion. It must not have been worms, but with answer D we also can say it was not likely to be geological process

This is one of those questions that really tries to trick you. The argument is that the asteroids impact couldn't effect the rest of the earth to cause the full extinction - a lot of info dumped in there is nonsense meant to throw you off. The right answer is the one that calls into question the validity that the claim means it didn't kill all the dinosaurs. Hence, "the dinos all lived near the impact" weakens it. This question is a great example that the first thing to fully understand is what the conclusion is

@BriannaZuniga I think this one is hard because its a lot of words about a complex subject. I had to reread and force myself to simplify it. Take each fact and put them together line by line, skipping the gobblygook, and it makes a lot more sense

I think Im doing this too late at night after work lol, I just completely skipped past the last sentence in B, which made that sound like it supported the theory, because it just says "eliminating predators led to herbivore species increasing"

Since B and C are just flipped, you can cross them both out since there is only one right answer. If B strengthens it, then so would C. Since only one can be right, they're both wrong

@Njbrunette A also says "only those species", the only I missed on first read through but noticed on the second which let me confirm B is correct.

Got it wrong, then right on BR (but that was after knowing B was wrong and crossing out the others)....I didn't read Waller's statement as a way to disprove that ESP exists, I read it as an imaginative world where "if people had ESP, then clearly they could just show everyone (wrong, he just notes the general public) and they would all believe it" I didn't take that as claiming that this proves ESP doesn't exist, he was just reflecting on what this hypothetical world would be like. I'm usually good at these, but its annoying how often I get them wrong due to something like that.

I put A because I took that to mean there are likely more malnourished people in the subject group of 65+ than what is recorded. I see why I'm wrong but very frustrating

I think my biggest issue is second guessing myself causing my time to increase. Got this one right, but took way to much time. When I do get questions wrong, I find often I had the right answer at first and then over thought it. Anyone else have this problem?

5 seems kind of stupid to me, we don't know that "not viewing election as important" would mean they wouldn't vote and we don't have a definition for "right before election". What if "right before election" was 6 months and 1 week? Lowering the age 6 months before, then, would mean that many voters were not eligible at the time.

I had to reread the stimulus multiple times to see why C is right and D is wrong. It's clear as day, just so frustrating to be doing this on my phone after a full day of work and everything else. I think I need to stop doing these at 830 pm lol. I basically read the the answers with the opposite logic

Im surprised this is ranked a 3/5, this seems like a fairly easy one? I've seen a few that are ranked as difficult that seem to be pretty easy, so kind of questioning the "Difficulty" ranking (If I sound arrogant to any readers, just know that there are most certainly questions I've gotten wrong that you got right)

@thr107 'm not saying to take my word for it, but something I'm gathering is a lot of this "Lawgic" is just getting you to read sentences a certain way.

The opera one is tough because it says "likely", which I would think is something you can say from the information in the premises. "Likely" doesn't mean "we can conclude she is classically trained", its more so "given this information its probable that she is classically trained", which leaves room to still conclude, "she is not classically trained". On the test, I would probably get this wrong because "it seems likely" does a lot of work to make the conclusion make sense.

I'm so annoyed with myself because I missed the "except" part of the question, and tried to find the answer that was closest to the stimulus. Reading too quickly through the question is def a mistake I make, and I have gotten quite a few of these types of questions wrong due to this!

@EmmaHulbert This is exactly my thought, I would love a further breakdown of this because IMO this did not address the argument made in the stimulus.

@Kevin_Lin Got it, so with Lawgic we want to push it to be as specific as possible.

4/5, I'm so annoyed because my first thought on Question 5 was correct but I over thought it and changed it. I find myself doing that a lot when I get a question wrong, I have the right answer but over think and then pick a wrong answer.

Can 5 also be translated to K <-some-> /Chil? We know its most, but this encapsulates "some" as well, right? Or are we to focus on taking the Lawgic as far as it can go, and that being the singular answer?

@ZoomorphicValidGoal none of that rules out "most", we are only talking about the inspections. If we say they are "usually" on Monday, that means it takes place on Monday more than the other days as a whole.

Its "Monday" vs "all other days of the week as one", this means that it usually happens on Monday over any other day.

Most does not imply the inspections are every Monday, it means that when an inspection is done it tends to be on a Monday instead of any other day.

Does this help?