We are trying to strengthen the anthropologist's counter argument. Let's start by identifying what the anthropologist's counter argument is:

"The results from the test are invalid because the powder had been tested in an acidic solution."

The counterargument is that the test was invalid because the powder was in acid.

What would strengthen this claim?

Something along the lines of acid making toxin T undetectable. This would strengthen the claim, right? If it is true that acid makes toxin T undetectable, then it would make sense that the test was invalid. The sample could have contained toxin T but the acid in the test made it undetectable. This is exactly what answer choice C gives us.

We are trying to evaluate the hypothesis that "judges prescreening scientific evidence and allowing only scientific evidence to be presented in the courtroom" is responsible for the phenomenon of jurors giving courtroom evidence more credibility than evidence outside of the courtroom.

Is B helpful to evaluate whether judges prescreening the evidence is responsible for jurors giving it more credibility?

Think about what B is really saying, that jurors' reactions to scientific evidence are influenced by members of the jury. What is a reaction? A gasp? A straight face? Does their reaction tell us anything about how much credibility they give it?

I don't think so, but let's assume that it does:

If we answer yes to B, that jurors' reactions are influenced by other members of the jury, does this help prove or disprove the hypothesis in the stimulus? I don't think so, we still don't know anything about whether the judge prescreening evidence affects how jurors interpret it.

Notice how much closer A is to the argument, both premise and conclusion. If A is not true, that jurors typically do not know whether the evidence is prescreened or not, then how could prescreening result in jurors' giving it more credibility? Jurors would be unaware of the prescreening. There would be no difference between evidence presented to jurors on the street and in the courtroom. This would wreck the hypothesis.

To determine the conclusion think about which part of the argument supports the other part. To me the bottom part of the argument supports the first two sentences of the stimulus.

Narrowing it down between C and E think about which most accurately captures the argument. C only gives the first part, that science can change. E includes both, that science can change and we should consider the price of change. By saying "We need to consider the impact of change before change is made" E already assumes change can be made.

Make sure you separate premises from conclusions. The premises of this argument are that profits are low and the company does not want to declare bankruptcy. From these premises the argument concludes (consequently is a hint) that there are only two options to prevent further decreases in profits.

The flaw is that the premises give no reason to think that there are only two solutions to the problem. This is a common flaw you will see on many questions where the stimulus describes a problem and concludes that there is only one or two ways to fix it.

The stimulus is describing a difference in countries with high avg fat intake and countries with low avg fat intake. They are saying high average fat intake is correlated with high rates of cancer, and low average fat intake is correlated with low rates of cancer.

The conclusion says that we can reduce cancer by reducing fat in our diet. They are assuming that fat causes cancer. This is the flaw, that we can never conclude causation from a correlation. We want an answer choice that attacks this flaw.

AC B gives us another fact that doesn't weaken the argument at all. So what if high fat countries are also correlated with high wealth? It does not change the original relationship between premise and conclusion.

You are making assumptions about whether wealthy countries can afford means to help combat cancer. There are plenty of people in wealthy countries without health insurance or the means to pay for cancer treatment. We have to stick with the argument and the information that was provided, we cannot make our own assumptions or use outside information related to the stimulus.

AC D gives us another reason why countries with high fat have high rates of cancer: high rates of environmental pollution. By adding this second piece of information it is much more difficult to draw the conclusion that fat causes cancer when we now have a second factor that could influence cancer rates. Notice how this required a small assumption, that high rates of environmental pollution can cause cancer, but how much closer to the argument this assumption is. The exam tests which kinds of assumptions are reasonable and which are not.

What helped me the most was drilling logic games sections on their own. I would do a timed LG section, blind review it, and then spend as much time as I needed reviewing/watching explanation videos until I understood the games inside and out. Then I would retake the section until I got it perfect. Repeat this for as many LG sections as you need until you start scoring perfect LG sections on your PTs!

Having a bear skeleton from the same time and place with a similar projectile just adds a second instance of what the stimulus already told us. The fact that there is a second skeleton with the same projectile does not weaken the argument.

It is like saying, "There is one weird thing so I think this happened."

And then saying, "Now there are two weird things, so this probably didn't happen."

Having two weird things does not weaken the argument.

The phrase that "Evelyn could not possibly have listened to the late news" is saying that it was impossible for Evelyn to have listened to the news.

The phrase "admits not having listened to the late news" is Evelyn saying that she did not listen to the news. These are two separate ideas. Consider an analogy:

"It is impossible for you to fly."

and

"I did not fly."

The stimulus tells us some committee members have significant financial interests. They also tell us no one on the committee lives in the suburbs. This means if you are on the committee you do not live in the suburbs and some of those on the committee have significant financial interests. You can write it like this:

Committee → Suburbs

Committee ←s→ Significant Financial Interests (SFI)

We know that some of those with significant financial interests are on the committee, so we can link up both relationships like this:

Significant Financial Interests ←s→ Committee → Suburbs

This tells us that some people with significant financial interests are on the committee, and those same people that are on the committee do not live in the suburbs.

Does this mean that all people with significant financial interests are on the committee and do not live in the suburbs? No! We only know that SOME of them are.

This is where B makes its error. B says that no one with significant financial interests lives in the suburbs. We just don't know enough information to draw that conclusion. All we know are some of those with SFI do not live in the suburbs. For all we know, the rest of those with SFI other than those on the committee do live in the suburbs.

The stimulus gives us one possible solution to lower the price of the products, refurbishing, and draws a conclusion that the factory MUST refurbish. Must implies that it is necessary. But is refurbishing the only way to lower the price of the parts? No! It is not necessary, there are certainly other ways to do this.

This is what B gets at, that the argument treats one way of solving the problem as the only way.

Think about what D is actually saying. D says that the argument "recommends a solution without first considering any possible causes of that problem." The problem is that the parts are too expensive. I think you could make the argument that the argument does address possible causes of this problem, that the machinery is outdated and inefficient.

And even if you do not believe the argument does this, is that the main flaw of the argument? If the argument addressed possible causes of the problem, then suddenly it would be an airtight argument and you could draw your conclusion? No! Addressing possible causes does not make refurbishing the only way to lower prices of the parts. D does not address the flaw that the argument treats one possible way of lowering prices as the only way.

I think what E means by "peach production has decreased dramatically" is that farmers are planting fewer peach trees and growing/harvesting fewer peaches, not literally that peach trees are producing less fruit.

E is irrelevant because it does nothing to weaken the argument. The fact that "peach production has decreased dramatically" does nothing to weaken the relationship between the support and the conclusion. The fact that peach production has decreased dramatically does not affect the higher costs of planting apricots or make planting apricots more attractive.

A directly attacks the relationship between the support and conclusion. If A is true, and apricots sell at a much higher price than peaches, then the amount apricots sell for may outweigh the additional costs of planting them and apricots could be more profitable than peaches.

There are two parts to every flaw reasoning question:

1) Does the answer choice accurately describe part of the argument?

2) Does the answer choice describe the main flaw in the argument?

If you can answer yes to both of these questions then you have your right answer.

Answer choice A tells us that the argument "takes for granted the only purpose of school is to convey a fixed body of information." I do not see this occur anywhere in the argument. Try to isolate the line of the argument that commits this flaw. I do not see it anywhere.

Even if for some reason you did see this occur, go to the second question. Does this describe the main flaw of the argument? It does not. The main flaw being committed is that the argument describes only two types of people, those extremely interested and those with no interest, and draws a conclusion that applies not only to these people but to EVERYONE.

We cannot draw conclusions about a large group of people based on only information about a small subset of them. This is what answer choice E gets at, by saying the argument fails to consider those students that are neither indifferent nor completely interested. For all we know incentives could help these students.

Remember, the question stem is asking for which answer choice is NOT supported by the information.

The fact that raising humidity can help protect computers from dry air is exactly why the answer choice "Humidity can be bad for computers" is NOT supported by the information, and is our correct answer choice.

No problem!

Looking at it again, the only is actually pretty irrelevant. The important part is that it says "maximum total utility is assured in a free market economy." When something is assured it is guaranteed to happen. That's what allows us to set up the relationship as FME -> MTU, because a free market economy assures, or guarantees, maximum total utility. Knowing we have a free market economy is sufficient for us to draw the conclusion that there is also maximum total utility.

The stimulus tells us that "maximum total utility is assured only in a free market economy." This means that if we have a free market economy, then we must have maximum total utility. They are giving us a sufficient condition for maximum total utility. We can write it like this:

Free Market Economy -> Maximum Total Utility

FME -> MTU

Does this mean that if we do not have a free market economy, that we cannot reach maximum total utility? No! That would only fail the sufficient condition, and as we know from our logic rules the relationship would completely fall away. We do not know what other ways can bring about maximum total utility or which way is the most likely to bring it about. We only know that a free market economy guarantees maximum total utility.

This is where the argument makes it flaw, by assuming that a condition that is sufficient to bring about maximum total utility is the most likely way to do it. We just do not know and there is not enough information to draw that conclusion. There very possibly could be some other way that is not guaranteed to bring about maximum total utility but is more likely to than a free market economy.

I think what they mean by "typically employed" in paragraph 2 is the type of equipoise the clinical trial is striving for. Just because they strive for this level of equipoise does not mean they will realize it, however. A few sentences later in paragraph 2 it states that theoretical equipoise is an "ideal hardly attainable in practice."

The author tells us traditionally, clinical studies would strive for theoretical equipoise even though in reality this level of equipoise was unattainable. It is similar to judges or police officers taking oaths to always maintain peace and justice, though we know that in reality this is an unattainable goal.

This is why the author's new idea for "clinical equipoise" is so important, because it allows those conducting clinical trials to adhere to a less restrictive kind of equipoise and conduct their research without feeling they are breaking an overly restrictive, unrealistic standard of equipoise.

C is correct because of the sentences telling us theoretical equipoise is an "ideal hardly attainable in practice," and that if it were always adhered to "few comparative clinical trials could commence and even fewer could proceed to conclusion." The author is intimating that most clinical trials that have been conducted have not adhered to the standard of theoretical equipoise.

I think the point you are missing is that the psychologist making the argument does not actually know what motivates the inclinations of twins. The psychologist is drawing a conclusion that our inclinations are motivated entirely by genetics based on "some studies" where identical twins separated at birth were similar in some ways.

The "in order to differentiate themselves" part gives us another explanation as to why identical twins have certain inclinations. If D is true, that identical twins that grow up together develop different inclinations to differentiate themselves, this is an example of one's inclinations NOT being entirely motivated by genetics. The identical twins in the case of D are motivated by the desire "to differentiate themselves." This is why if D is correct it weakens the relationship between the support and the conclusion and the overall argument.