Conclusion: The pledge created by the Department of Health to reduce underage drinking is successful to reduce underage drinking

A: The stimulus does not discuss the morality of underage drinking. period.

B: This is not the goal of the conclusion. The conclusion says that the program created by the Dept of health was simply successful. IT does not state whether it was more or less succful than other program would be.

C: Well yes, this is the exact mistake that the stimulus is making. The program would only be successful if it was the pledge that was causing people not to drink. However, we aren't given evidence that the pledge is causing people to drink. We are only given evidence that SOME people who take the pledge do not drink.

D: Well this just doesn't happen in the argument. There isn't really a sufficient or necessary condition here?

E: This is a tricky answer choice. It reads as if the second claim they mention is causal, and the first claim is correlation, and thus seems to sound like the correct answer. But as JY breaks down, the two "confused" claims are exactly the same false correlation. So this answer doesn't show why the argument is flawed.

Conclusion: Accounting for the advance should not be counted as evidence for Einstein's theory

A: The problem here is not that the theory was credited with the discovery of the phenomenon, it's that the phenomenon should not be used as evidence in support of the accuracy of the theory

B: This is the opposite of what the argument is trying to say. The theory should be developed WITHOUT the phenomenon in mind, and not alternated to accurately predict an already known phenomenon

C: While this is probably a true thing in real science, it has no relation to the argument being made in this question. The argument here is about how a certain prediction of the theory should not be counted as evidence in support of a theory, not what makes a theory "well-supported" or not and whether this theory is "well supported" or not

D&E are both very similar answer choices. What makes E wrong I believe is the fact that E states the condition that the phenomenon must be known to the scientist developing the theory, which is a bit too strong for this argument, as the stimulus does not mention whether or not Einstein knew about the phenomenon when he was developing his theory, and still makes the claim nonetheless, making D the correct answer choice. Secondly, E is wrong because it discusses whether or not the theory PREDICTS the phenomenon, when what really matters is whether the phenomenon can be used in SUPPORT of the theory.

A: many scientists believe that this is the case, but we can't say for certain that this is the case

B: We can't make any causal inferences based on negating the sufficient condition, and this is exactly what this answer tries to do

C: We don't know if this is the case, the stimulus refers to an EL Nino that was unusually strong, not just strong

D: This is wrong because the stimulus tells us that the scientists believe that global warming caused by air pollution enhances the strength of the el Nino, not that the air pollution was responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires.

E: We know for a fact from the stimulus that the el Nino contributed to the widespread draught. Therefore, if we grant the condition that air pollution enhanced the strength of the el Nino (which we can do from the way this answer choice is worded, but we can't do from the stimulus because it says MANY (not all) scientists believe) then it must be true that the air pollution eventually contributed to the draught.

Conclusion: The conclusion that it is taboo to eat animals because they are worth more alive than dead is UNWARRENTED

A: This is absolutely true. specifically, the anthropologist DOES call into question an explanation of the phenomenon that lots of cultures have taboos against eating animals. He calls into question specifically the explanation that this is a result of the fact that animals are worth more alive than dead. He calls this explanation into question by showing that the evidence presented for the explanation, which was that the animals which are taboo to eat provide labor, could have arisen AFTER eating those animals became taboo in an effort to make what must stay alive productive for society

B: The anthropologist just doesn't do this in the stimulus. There is nothing in the stimulus to indicate that he doubts the researchers' evidence. In fact, he uses it for his own conclusion

C: He doesn't reject ALL of the reasoning for the hypothesis, and he doesn't say that his alternate hypothesis is more plausible. He just says we can't conclude for sure the hypothesis that the researchers presented

D: The evidence used for both hypotheses is the same, just interpreted differently. There is no incompatible evidence

E: For one thing, the hypothesis isn't about the SEQUENCE of events, but about an explanation for a phenomenon. He doesn't just argue that the events occurred in a different sequence, but adds a new event that just occurred prior to the event discussed earlier.

Conclusion: When we hire sales representatives, we should favor people with engineering degrees and little/no sales experience over extensive sales experience with no engineering degree

A: Some could mean 1. If one sales employee got their degree while working for the company, does that change strength of the relationship between the premises and the conclusion? not at all

B: The best sales reps at the company have to come out of the pool of sales reps at the company. If the pool contains mostly one group, the best in the pool will likely come from that group. At least much more likely than from the minority group. So this weakens the relationship between the premise and conclusion

C: If anything, this strengthens the argument maybe? It seems to me like a reason to require engineering degrees from the sales reps to make them more relatable. but I can't possibly see how this weakens the argument

D: Just because most people who apply don't have an engineering degree, does not at all mean that the best people shouldn't have one.

E: I think the flaw with this AC is the word some. If one or two of the employees had no sales experience but sucked, it doesn't really weaken the argument. Furthermore, we don't know if these "some" people had engineering degrees or not, so they may not have even been part of the group the president was talking about

Conclusion: Decaf must contain something that that damages connective tissue and is not present in caff coffee

A: Fell for this trap using outside knowledge. Nothing in the stimulus indicates that exercise relates to connective tissue.

b: The evidence presented in the stimulus already accounts for amount of consumption (3 cups per day vs. 3 cups per day)

c: If the degernation of connective tissue is slowed by caffeine, then it could be that rather than something being in DECAF that damages connective tissue, something could be in CAFF that reduces standard tissue. Correct

D: Wrong for the same reason as B. The study compared 3 to 3, and the study established correlation there

E: Most people with arthritis could not drink any coffee. But that doesn't change the fact that coffee might cause arthritis

Conclusion: some forms of gum disease are caused or aggravated by suppression of immune system.

A: Make it true or false, doesn't affect the argument

B: If refusing to think about something troubling did not contribute to one's level of stress, then the link to the immune system getting weakened wouldn't occur and the argument would no longer stand.

C: It feels like the argument is trying to make the opposite claim. Certainly not something the argument relies on

D: This does not need to be the case for the argument to be true. For example, perhaps not having stress keeps the immune system healthy enough to keep out gum infection without the need for dental care at all. Although this being true would certainly strengthen the argument, it isn't necessary

E: Perhaps people refuse to think about problems for other reasons. That action could still cause them stress, and the argument still stands.

#17

A: Both parts of the answer are supported by the evidence, as JY explains

B: The part that is wrong here is "flattering in its interpretation of the evidence," since passage B is clearly demonstrating that the interpretation of the evidence in question is ignoble

C: The author would probably not argue that the evidence is ambiguous, as he is making a detailed conclusion based on that evidence.

D&E are clearly wrong from the fact that passage B does not think that passage a's conclusion about rivalry is correct

#18

A&B are wrong off the bat because passage A argues for, not against a view.

E is also wrong because the point of the study mentioned in passage A is not for the main topic, but to demonstrate the concept of rivalry which of one of two phenomenons discussed in passage A

C: What view is the S&H study being presented to demonstrate?

D: The entire focus of passage B is on how to interpret the S&H study

#20

A: Immediately can cross this out, as passage A does not mention biology in the slightest

B: Nothing in Passage A implies this is the case

C: No evidence in the passage, could not pinpoint a situation in which Passage A does this

D: Yes absolutely. Would leave this one

E: Yes, would also leave this one. We get the data in the second half.

#7

A: The symptoms of CJD don't have to be exclusive to CJD. A person could have symptoms of one thing and those symptoms could also relate to other diseases. That doesn't mean that prions don't cause CJD.

B: Unrelated to the question stem. Just because none of the currently available therapies work doesn't mean that prions don't cause CJD. Maybe we haven't discovered it yet?

C: Maybe prions are also related to other, non-related diseases. But that doesn't mean they're mutually excessive with CJD or can't cause CJD

D: Just because there is no hereditary predisposition to CJD doesn't mean that Prions can't cause it. In fact, the passage specifically states this in other words.

E: Correct answer because if it's true that a drug attacking bacteria is helping in cases of CJD, then there could be a possibility that CJD is caused by a bacteria.

A: Completely unrelated to the question stem. We are trying to argue for an antidillusion provision for dumping, not burning.

B: Perfect answer choice. The purpose of the law is to prevent harm for the environment. If there is a loophole that allows a company to get around the law and still hurt the environment, it should be closed by the antidillusion provision.

C: We have no idea if dumping leads to exposure to sunlight and oxygen. Furthermore, this doesn't relate at all to antidillusion and why that should be prohibited.

D: Who cares what most owners of dumps think? That's not gonna beat answer choice B and doesn't really explain why the government would have the provision in the stimulus/question stem. Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between 500/800

E: Whether or not that's true, we aren't improving the argument that we're supposed to be improving in the question stem.

Conclusion: Heavy downpours are likely to become more frequent if Earth's atmosphere becomes significantly warmer

A: We can determine if something is a conclusion by asking "why" to each sentence. The first sentence is a conclusion because the rest of the stimulus answers the question "why" heavy downpours are likely to become more frequent if Earth's atmosphere becomes significantly warmer. So the question stem sentence is not the only conclusion in the argument.

B: For the same reasons as A, it is not the conclusion of the argument as a whole

C: The key word as to why this answer is wrong is the word INTENDED. While it is true that the argument somewhat supports this statement, and it is not the conclusion overall, the argument is not necessarily INTEDED to support this statement. Rather, this statement is just a sub conclusion that is intended to support the only true conclusion of the argument. This is in fact what makes D the right answer choice.

D: Correct answer because this is a major premise that is written to support the only true conclusion of the argument, written above

e: Immediately crossed off by the latter part of the answer choice, as the premise in the question stem is absolutely intended to support the conclusion on of the argument as a whole.

Conclusion: sparkle cola elicits a more favorable response from consumers than any of the competing colas tested

A: Correct. While it may be true that on balance, most of the volunteers preferred sparkle cola to the other sodas, we don't know if that holds true for each individual group. Meaning that for one group, the other cola could have won out over sparkle cola.

B: We don't know anything about cost and the conclusion is about consumer preferences on taste

c: The conclusion is clear when it refers to sparkle cola being compared to TESTED competing colas. So this answer is not something the conclusion overlooks

D: The volunteers were blindfolded so I don't think it overlooked this possibility, and A is a stronger criticism than this anyway

E: Like C, the conclusion specifies that the study was testing sparkle cola to a specific selection of other colas, not over beverages or colas not tested in the study.

A: Doesn't even comment on rare species of trees at all

B: The word "older" doesn't give us a sense of relative survival length. A 4 year old tree is older than a 1 year old tree, but maybe the rare trees are surviving for 50-100 years. Furthermore, this answer doesn't talk about species of trees, which is an important distinction in the stimulus

C: I suppose this answer is trying to point out a flaw in the study? Which is not really the goal of the question stem, which is to figure out an explanation for the conclusion

D: This answer neglects the other half of the question stem about the direct comparison to common trees. Why do common trees die fasteR?

E: This answer is correct because it 1) touches on both sides of the argument, and includes an explanation for both common trees and rare trees and 2) delineates specifically why common species of trees die faster than rare species of trees

Conclusion:The recent biography of Shakespeare does not explain what is of most interest about him

A: If this were false, the conclusion could still be drawn. In fact, if there was a way to know what made Shakespeare different, that would probably help the argument.

B: Completely irrelevant to the argument. Quick strikethrough

C: This is a tricky one. But if we grant this additional premise to the argument, the argument is still not valid. There is still a gap between what makes Shakespeare different and why that is the most interesting thing about him. That's how we get rid of c.

D: This is both an overkill answer choice and also falls to the same trap as C. Even if we grant this additional premise, we still don't have the link mentioned above in C.

E: correct answer choice because it bridges the gap between the premise that the biography didn't describe what makes Shakespreae different and the premise that the biography is missing the most interesting thing about him.

A: If they're doing this for locals, then that's great! locals are able to get even more benefits from the dealerships that this answer choice does not give explicitly to tourists

B: If this is the case, it makes dealerships less attractive for tourists, which strengthens the argument that it benefits locals better than tourists because now the premise that there is a cost of a taxi ride to the dealership actually means something relative to the cost of no taxi ride from renting directly in the airport

C: Strengthens by eliminating a potential hypothesis that it could be equal for tourists/locals since tourists could just ask a travel agent.

d: Initially tricked me up because I had given up on e and this didn't exactly say that tourists wouldn't have access other the same information. But although it only strengthens it slightly, in retrospect it is much better than answer choice E

e: If they were less expensive, this would strengthen the argument. But saying they're no less expensive gives us basically no information on how the premises relate to the conclusion.

A: he doesn't support yang's conclusion, he disagrees with it!

B: Missed this one because I didn't think that there was a presumption that there were no other leavening agents. But when Yang makes the conclusion from his premises, he MUST make that presumption internally, and the other guy calls him out on it.

c: I think it's Clear that he considers the reasons, as his response directly addresses those reasons

D: Saying to someone that you find their argument unconvincing doesn't mean you disagree with the conclusion. But furthermore, he never states explicitly that another leaven could have been known. He just states that there could have been other leavens, so we can't say for sure that yeast was known to be leaven back then.

E: he doesn't deny any of the premises, he denies the link between the premises given and the conclusion by presenting an alternate hypothesis.

Conclusion: Factory's emissions present no health risk

A: This doesn't explicitly happen. An assumption is required to make this answer choice right, namely that the REASON why the industrialist pointed out the testimony of the residents is because he was trying to attack their motive, when we do not know if this was the case

B: The argument isn't considered with other emissions, only the factory's emissions

C: This is the right answer choice, because the industrialist concedes that only the scientists can make a conclusion on whether there is a health risk, and then doesn't present a scientist concluding that there is no health risk.

D: Doesn't pertain to the conclusion of the argument

E: Just doesn't do that

#19

A: although this is extremely tricky because I get the sense that the passage severely implies this, it doesn't explicitly say: chess players don't remember sequences of moves for other games

B: We have no idea how good chess players are at spacial awareness. The passage doesn't really comment on it.

C: The passage did not comment on whether the level of difficulty of the chess game affects one's ability to remember it

D: Technically, this is right. because the passage EXPLICITLY states that chess players ONLY remember the positions of the pieces when they resemble a typical chess game. So if one were to just dump pieces across the board randomly, they may not remember them.

E: Just like B, we don't know how logic is affected by this, and it's not EXPLICITY mentioned by the passage

#16

A: If innate talent isn't really a key indicator of success, and people can achieve great things with or without extensive innate talent, then we might be able to say that it would be hard to determine if someone had innate talent. While this isn't a perfect answer choice, it comes closer than E and much closer than B-D.

B: Opposite of what the passage says. It says all you need is a general level of talent, not the highest level of talent.

C: Not supported. While a base level of talent is necessary, an exceptional level is not a prerequisite for anything

D: I can see the trap they're trying to create here with the discussion of motivation at the bottom, but it requires a lot of assumptions we can't make. The passage does not generally comment on this kind of stuff.

E: The importance of motivation and interest are not the reasons why talent isn't as important as skill and training. Furthermore, the author concedes that some level of talent is necessary, rather than zero. This makes me suspect A is the right answer choice.

Only if does imply a necessary condition. Meaning for your original statement, in order for a living organism to be a human, it must meet the condition that it is a dog. But just because it meets that condition doesn't mean it is a human. However, what you can imply is the contrapositive: if a living organism is a dog, you know for sure it is not a human.

A: she hasn't overlooked a fact, she's just misattributed the impact of the fact that an insurer drives profit

B: She doesn't deny the premises, she concedes them and say they don't link to the impact

C: The second half of the answer is problematic, because Binh does not say that Kira's conclusion false, only that her premises don't make it true

D: What makes this answer correct is what makes C wrong. Bring does not say that Kira's conclusion false, but only that her premises aren't making her conclusion true

E: Binh explicitly states her Kira's premises do not support her conclusion, and also does not say that they contradict each other

#26

A: The studies weren't necessarily surprising/unexpected and certainly weren't concerned with the extent of human RELIANCE on external verification, rather how external influence affected memories

B: Possibly, although I'm not sure if it's "new light" or a "longstanding controversy"

C: The findings weren't that tentative or inconclusive, at least the author presented them as very thorough and conclusive

D: The studies don't look into logical reasoning, they look into memory

E: Initially crossed out this answer choice because there was no mention of academic/classroom settings in the passage so it felt super out of place. I suppose the reason why it's correct is because you can imply from the author's tone of urgency that it should be talked about everywhere

#15

A: The author says the exact opposite of this

B: Misrepresenting the problem. It isn't that we haven't identified the force but rather than we have identified the force but haven't identified the particles the force relies on

C: Not really the KEY to the problem. There could be other elementary particles out there or the theory could be wrong

D: correct inference given that there is no mention of any other theories and the fact that the author stresses the importance of finding particles that explain how the theory of gravity accounts for the organization of galaxies

E: Author says in the passage that this is likely no more than 20% and there could be other particles that account for the rest of it