B is very tricky because if you were to read it a few times, it would make sense.

But what flew me away from it was that it did not follow the rule already presented by the counselor. The counselor believes they are owed an "sincere" apology because they too were lied too. The word sincere is important because the person who lied could have half way apologized or not apologized sincerely which would not complete the rule.

Sometimes the words in the stimulus are important, especially if they are stated more than once.

Also, B reads like the person who lied HAS to apologize to them...which they do not. The counselor is just suggesting that since they already did something, they should provide that same support to them as well since the rules applied (lying about the same thing).

I had the same suspicion but one thing I have to remind myself that I have heard from both JY and my tutor is that an answer will not always be Ideal.

If it makes sense don't completely discount it, but look upon the other questions and test if those answer choices could be right. I was left with A and D but I had to ask myself amongst the two, which one is the most likely to answer. Doesnt have to be exact, but will answer it.

thats how i felt tooo!!!

For this specific question (and most resolve) you have to find an answer that looks to answer the question for both sets of arguments presented. While B could be true, we are still left questioning why the fossilized skeletons are rare.

It was good that you got down to two answer choices, but between the two which one allows for the arguments presented to be true. Answer choice A did that more than B did

#CLAIM

dont be discouraged!

i think a lot of LC can distract us from thinking too hard on some questions that sometimes require minimal thinking. for this one, I spent a little more time than usual but I had to just rephrase what each person was saying, and look for key word(s) that would place both arguments/statements into the answer choices. I looked for 'Voters', because that was the one thing they both had a disagreement on.

also, like the name. we will get 170+!!!

It could be inferred, but I think that widens the gap of assumption too far, which can hurt you when the agreement or disagreement is explicitly stated.

Sklar explicitly tells us that they object teaching children chess, period. Then they go into why they object this teaching towards children.

Sklar may disagree (or not, we just do not know) that it discourages carelessness, inattention, and impulsiveness. But they never stated they disagreed with what it could do mentally, only that it would inhibit them in other areas, therefore its not a choice they would make.

lol, i did the same! i always read so fast and mix up the words in the answer choice and become quick to answer...but re-reading answer choices before I choose is beginning to help

The trick I relied on was first identifying the conclusion, which states that small observational trials are going to be dramatic since they are reported more.

If you look back at the first sentence, it confirms the point the argument is trying to make. (you can also just read the first sentence, then the conclusion to confirm...but staying in the habit of finding the conclusion first helps you to not become lost in what the question stem is asking you to identify and where--the conclusion)

Once you get that, you can do one of two things:

1. ask yourself what you think the answer choice will be/or has to contain

2. look at the answer choices and see which ones speak directly to the conclusion.

This particular stimulus is easy to break down simply because you can identify that the part about unreliability in comparison of small or large observational trials is not brought up by the conclusion. So that helps you to immediately cross out any answer choices that speak about this.

Your next action is to find what alternative explanation can apply to this study that would make this conclusion flawed. After you have come up with a few, see if the remaining answer choices show any of those. I asked myself as soon as I was done reading, "well, what if there just happens to be more reported small observation trials than larger ones. that could be the reason they tend to show up more?" which led me to (D)

(I hope this makes sense because even with explanations, I get lost. But re-watch his videos if you need to and also look at explanation videos as well! )

nooo, dont be over this!! you got it :)

yoo, im becoming more confident on these lessons!!!

how i read the question is that you would likely feel comfortable talking to someone who is approx. your age in order to have a long-term friendship.

but lets say you felt comfortable talking to someone who is not your age, does that mean you are less likely to have a long-term friendship?

(B) in many words expresses that in order to have a long-term friendship not only do you have to be comfortable talking to a stranger but a stranger who is approx. age.

which is a flaw, because if you are comfortable talking to someone who is of a different age and you decide to have a long-term friendships...the argument and answer (B) are stating that you "can't" do that. which we know to not be true ;)

(me with many long-term friendships of various different ages, both approx. to my age and far)

(hope this makes sense)

i want to ask with Flaw questions if correlation is something that we likely "always" challenging whether in support of or against. in this one I chose (D) because it seemed like the answer choice provided that there could be a correlation, that the argument is choosing to ignore?

Would you suggest that, if time permitted, you could try to find the main conclusion easier if you move it towards the bottom of the stimulus? I know at times their could be two, but ONE is the main...but I think that has helped me identify the conclusion easier

i said the same thing!!! lol