- Joined
- Sep 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
I got this question right,,,, because I was too lazy to try and understand it so I randomly picked...... I still don't understand it
Misdirected Response
This is when the Author or a second speaker responds to an argument the other person never actually made. The response essentially aims for the wrong target.
Example:
“Pat: I think we should cancel some of our streaming …..subscriptions to save money”
“Sam: So you want us to have no entertainment at all?”
This is a Ridiculous argumenty, Pat Never said cancel all of them. she said cancel some.
False Dichotomy
The most common version of this is when you think you're limited to two options, even though there might be otheres one available.
“Pat: I don't think we should order delivery again tonight”
“Sam: Agreed. So we’ll have to eat out today”
Sam is overlooking something like cooking a healthy meal at home or many other options, that's why Sam's response just isn't persuasive.
Confusing a Mental State with a Reality
This happens when you mix up a fact about the world, with someone's belief or intention, of what's happening in their mind, or the other way around.
“Pat: My old roommate just walked past me and didn't say anything. why ………is she trying to avoid me?”
“Sam: “Are you sure she saw you ?”
Just because the ex roommate didn't acknowledge her, doesn't mean she intended to do that. We don't know what the old roommate was thinking or even doing, we don't know if she had the intention to avoid her.
Confusing lack of support with false conclusion
The most common version of this is when you think knocking down somebody's argument proves their conclusion is wrong. That's a flaw because the conclusion can still stand even if you take away its support.
“Pat: You should drive carefully, since you're a Gemini and Mercury is ………moving retrograde.”
“Sam: Astrology has been debunked. And besides, I'm a Scorpio. so I don't .. .. .. .. need to drive carefully.
Sam's response just is not persuasive. she knocked down pat support, but that doesn't mean her conclusion is wrong. Maybe Sam still should drive carefully for other reasons besides astrology.
Attacking the Source
This happens when you attack the person that holds a view, rather than the view itself. That is a flaw because whether someone's biased or hypocritical or has a bad character, doesn't affect whether their view is true.
“Pat: Want to buy my coffee table? It was Handmade by a master … ….. …… ..Craftsman in Japan.”
“Sam: Stop lying you just want to make money on your old furniture”
Sure it's true Pat has financial interest in saying what he said, but that does not prove what he said is wrong. Maybe it really was made by a master Craftsman in Japan. So it was attacking the proponents rather than the merits of the claim
Overlooking Factories
The most common version of this happens when you base a judgment on only some of the facts that matter. weighing a cost or benefit but ignoring the other side, or fixating on one effect while ignoring the one that pushes the other way.
“Pat: I got the job, but it pays less than I wanted and requires 5 days in .. … .. ..person.
“Sam: Obviously you shouldn't take it”
But we only have two cons, the pay, the in person requirement. but what if the job provides connections, valuable experience, or what if it's just fun? Sam ignores the possibility that reasons in favor of taking the job could outweigh the reasons against taking it.
Part vs Whole
This happens when you assume that something true about individual components of a thing,.. must also be true about the whole thing, or the other way around.
“Pat: Ice cream is delicious. I also really like sushi, ranch dressing, and ……...pickles.
“Sam: Perfect. You'll love the ice cream Sushi Ranch pickle smoothie I ………made.”
Ingredients that are great on their own can be vomit-inducing combined. What's true about each part doesn't have to be true about the whole. and it wouldn't be a persuasive argument the other way around either. if the Smoothie tastes terrible that wouldn't mean that each of the ingredients also has to taste bad.
Unrepresentative Sample
This happens when you generalize about a group based on a slice of it that is skewed in a relevant way.
“Pat: I saw 100 students on the quad protesting about endangered ……..beetles”
“Sam: Just goes to show the typical college students care way too much ……….about the environment”
These students at the protest are just a slice of the overall student body. and since they're at the protest, they're probably more likely than others to care about the environment. Sam's generalizing about the typical student based on unrepresentative samples.
Assuming cause from correlation
This happens when you think the fact two things tend to show up together proves that one thing must cause the other. That's a flaw because there could be other explanations for why the two things show up together. Maybe there is a third factor that causes both. Or maybe the causal direction is reversed.
“Pat: People who run for Student Government positions seem to have an ……...easier time getting internships in the summer”
“Sam: We should run next year to increase our chances of getting an ……….internship”
Pat had only pointed out a correlation between “ running for the position” and “chances of an internship.” but Sam thinks that this shows running for the position actually causes better chances. That's a huge assumption. What if people who are more charismatic or better interviewers or more likely to run for Student Government positions? and it's these personality traits and skills that also make them more likely to secure an internship. The student government position itself might have no causal impact at all. That's why Sam's response just doesn't hold up
He illicitly Infer as a cause from a correlation
Confusing Sufficient for Necessary
This is the number one flaw. This happens when you think something that guarantees another thing, is absolutely required for that thing or the other way around.
“Pat: Every team that wins their division advances to the playoffs”
“Sam: since the Yankees were in the playoffs, they must have Wonder ……divisions, right?
Winning their division guarantees that a team gets to the playoffs. but that doesn't mean a team needs to win their division to advance. Maybe it can advance through another path, such as having the best record outside of the division winners. That's why Sam's argument is flawed. He thinks winning the division is necessary in order to make the playoffs, when it's actually just one path that's sufficient to make the playoffs.
Why are there a bunch of men in these comments so pressed about a feminist writer? Men are too emotional, damn.
What's really helping me get these questions right are the notes I made on each specific question and what those types of questions look for. Go back to the notes, read what that type of question looks for, and it will be so much easier to find it.
This passage was so easy to read and understand. The one before this was so hard.
If you’re confused by this question, it’s likely because you’re not recognizing the significance of the last line of the paragraph: “Life could not have survived here.”
Think about why scientists would be concerned if the LHB struck Earth. Their goal is to determine when life could have existed on Earth and whether life could have survived the LHB. This explains why the scientists are so focused on studying the LHB: they need to determine whether its occurrence was compatible with the survival of life on Earth.
The key is to connect the last sentence to the scientists’ motivation for studying the LHB.
I thought this paragraph was saying that we can't attribute morality to corporations because they are not one entity, but a multitude of people that make it up. There's the employees, the CEO, the shareholders, etc., etc.
Why do I feel like this is a one-star question, but they just said it's a five-star question to make us all feel better?
Literally at the last second it felt like I got zapped by electricity and it all clicked in my head.
I have a better chance of fighting a Titan and winning.... then getting one of these questions right.
I am so bad at these questions. I'm just not even gonna study them. There's zero hope for me.
The only reason I got this right was because everything else was wrong and I was too lazy to even try to understand C
If I find the test writer who wrote answer choice C?.....For legal reasons wont finish the sentence.
LMFAOOOOOO MISSILESSSSSSSSSSSSSS