Right, so I missed that flaw here is that there's a mismatch from just lowering heart disease to being healthier. Noting this flaw makes it easier to see why B is correct because it undermines the idea that it causes people to be healthier in general. I originally thought this went out of scope, but liver problems and other illnesses are included in the health category.

E is wrong because it ignores that this comparison is based on the French having a high fat diet. We don't know about other regions.

#help #tutor #admin I need help understanding why C is wrong. Isn't C essentially pointing out Marianne's wrongful assumption?

C says that some of a person's involuntary actions are actions of which that person is aware.

Marianne assumes that her action of humming will continue to remain involuntary.

Is C wrong because it, in itself, is too weak and general to apply to the stimulus? I.e. We as the reader have to make the assumption that this is talking about the specific scenario in the stimulus?

A- I thought this was an example of showing that the cause was still possible without the effect (aka there could still be normal babies born from mothers w/ inadequate care). However, this doesn't actually contribute anything to the conclusion because the conclusion only says that adequate care makes it less likely that low-weight babies are born. This still leaves room for the scenario where mothers who receive inadequate care can still give birth to normal babies. So this answer is an illusion and is actually consistent with what's being stated in the stimulus.

B- My contender provides an alternative explanation for what the author thinks is a solid conclusion by introducing a problem with the data. This undermines the causal relationship between adequate care decreasing the risk of low birth weight by pointing that the record misclassifies certain types of mothers.

The author concludes that speech acq is based entirely on motor control. This means that he precludes any other explanation for the process of speech acq.

The assumption he's making here is that speech acquisition relies only on motor control processes (so producing sounds of langauge that aren't just random babbling sounds).

A says exactly this. If negated, it would say that speech acquisition is not a function only of ability to produce sounds...This means that there could be other things that cause speech acquisition, which would destory the argument that it relies ENTIRELY on motor control.

I myself went beyond the author's assumption and overlooked it. I assumed that because the author concludes that speech acq is a motor control process, that he's assuming infants aren't capable of any motor control, hence choosing B. But even if they CAN move their tongues, it doesn't say anything about their speech acq, so B is just a premise booster.

The basis of the argument is the horsocope and how, according to the author, it does not completely determine our personalities. Au makes his case by conceding that though twins do often have similiar personalities, two individuals with the same exact birthday but different locations don't.

The author must be assuming that people with the same exact birthday/time have the same personalities (though the twin thing is just extra info, I think it helps strengthen this point).

C addresses this implicit thinking by ruling out an alternative explanation and saying that the geographical difference doesn't cause different horoscope (aka that they must have the same horoscope).

Au is assuming that just because the reptiles and birds have a similar trait, that both used it for the same functioning. Since this is a necessary assumption question, we need to have that explicitly stated in order for the argument to not be weakened (because if we don't explicate this assumption, the argument will either be weak or destroyed).

I was between D and E and incorrectly chose D.

I identified E as being an assumption made by the argument during my pre-phrase but just did not see how it was necessary compared to the other more simple explanations. The tip of looking for the simple/boring answers in NA questions isn't helping me tbh.

However, E undermines the conclusion DIRECTLY. If they did move to new territories during specific seasons, it contradicts the Au's conclusion that they didn't.

@Haleh Right, it seems like an unintuitive/weird answer but we don't have to think about this answer as being the only thing upon which the pool being open before noon hinges on. It's just one of the possibilities. This is also great example of sufficiency at its core. If every person in Biba's neighborhood is allowed to swim at some time on open days, then one child under the age of 6 is enough to mean that the pool would be open at some time before noon in order to accomodate those under the age of 6.

We're given the times when children cannot swim but we're not given the time they can swim. So we can logically infer that the pool is open at some time period other than that reserved for those above age 6 and adults in order for everyone in the neighborhood to be able to swim.

What helped me with this was to think of the general boundaries about which we can make an inference based on the facts. I'm not good at prephrasing specific inferences, but it helps me to at least assess the limits of the inferences I can make. In this scenario, the boundaries we can infer something about are the taproot, where no matter what, it will always be longer than the height. We can also infer the more it rains, the taller the chicory will be, and thereby the taller its taproot.

This is why E is correct.

I was between A and C and chose C because it seemed to be so connected to the stimulus (which I now understand its bc it's a necessary assumption). C does not explain why the farmer, in practice, dries them in the room despite stating a different theory. It's important to refer to the Q-stem here (which I sometimes ignore after the initial skim).

A however explains why the farmer says one thing then does another. This choice tells us why the best method for drying kernels is impractical for the farmer, hence leading to a different practice. If the farmer experiences a cloudy season then maybe the popcorn would not dry at the right speed.

The correct answer choice here presents a problem associated with the farmer's dry-in-the-field method.

@JonathanWatkins Yeahh I was conflicted about the same thing originally, which is why I think this is such a weak answer. But the other answers are even weaker-- I explained my thinking above, lmk if that helps clarify!!

Why is it that the resident's of Limone don't have cardiovascular disease despite having high cholestrol (which is correlated with the disease)?

I didn't love the answer choices in this question because I felt like certain assumptions are needed from all of them. This was my thought process:

A- Irrelevant. We don't know that the residents of Limone have great longevity, so this can't contirbute to an explanation.

B- Contradicted. This was my contender for a bit because it provides an alternative explanation (as does D). But this talks about exacerbating "existing" conditions which we is contradicted. We know that the residents don't have the disease.

C- Inapplicable. This would have been correct (IMO) had it said that they have very low blood sugar. But this answer gives a certain condition to resolve the discrepancy and then qualifies the residents against that condition. So it's irrelevant to the residents.

E- Irrelevant. This tries to act like an alternative explanation but is inapplicable to the stimulus.

D- Although this is the most plausible explanation for the discrepancy, I didn't love it because it requires us to make assumptions. This says that this protein inhibits A cause of cardiovascular disease (as is cholesterol), but how do know that the cholesterol doesn't somehow inhibit or lessen the effectiveness of this protein??? The saving grace with this one is that it applies to the "residents of Limone" generally, so we can assume that having this protein outweighs other causes of cardiovascular disease like cholesterol. Nevertheless, I still think it's a bad answer and that it's only correct for the sake of the fact that the other answers are worse. :(

Why is it that most of the total revenue in the movie industry comes from low-budget movies when big-budget movies make significantly more money?

There's a number v. percentages flaw in this argument where the author may be assuming that because big-budget movies make the MOST money individually, that they would contribute most to the TOTAL money. However, he's overlooking the possibility that there are many more low-budget than high-budget movies made that contribute to the overall total revenue.

@HappyTestTaker I was stuck on B for a bit too but I think you have to step back in these questions and think more generally, since the correct answer has to account for all the different things contributing to the discrepancy.

B is attractive because it makes us assume that anxiety (a psychological effect) is somehow contributing to the migraines (which was my prephrase when I was thinking of a potential discrepancy). However, if it's true that emotional stress causes migraines, then this furthers the paradox by suggesting that psychological effects DO cause migraines and that migraines are not purely physiological.

C better explains the paradox because it says that those who already have anxiety are likely to seek professional treatment. We know that people who are getting professional treatment for migraines have higher rates of anxiety (from the stimulus) so this tells us that the anxiety causes people to seek treatment for their migraines, not necessarily that migraines themeslves are caused by psychological effects like anxiety.

This took me a bit too long.

Why is it that despite providing almost limitless power from cheap raw materials, that the resident's average electric bill would only be reduced up to 25% maximum, even if all traditional generators are replaced with this tech? (Why not more?)

All the wrong answers help answer this question, including:

A- the potential building and maintanance costs would be more than traditional generators. So there would not be a significant net decrease and would potentially affect the resident's bill.

B- Environemntal regulations on cold fusion would increase its operating costs.

D- The majority of the resident's electric bill is not even strongly based on the energy expenses, so transitioning would not have a strong effect.

E- Even if raw materials for cold fusion are cheaper, personnel costs for those who are distributing the power are not cheaper. It doesn't matter if costs of raw materials go down, because there would still be the same or maybe even higher personnel costs.

Attacking this with curiosity/inquisitiveness: Why is it that unsalable garments are 7% but recycled garments reported as scrap are 9%?

One observation is that there's a mismatch in the stimulus between garments that are found to be "defective" and those that are "reported" as scrap. So to explain this mismatch, one possibility is to look for an answer that addresses the difference in how these stats are recorded.

This helped me get to E since it addresses the mismatch by pointing that there's a difference in the counting methodology: that the unsalable garments are counted individually whereas the recycled ones are recorded by their weight. Some garments are likely heavier than others, so of course the weight percentage would be higher (or at least different).

I was briefly attracted to B and C because B describes a potential alternative to why there might be a shift in numbers, though it doesn't address the recycled scrap piece. C can be eliminated easily since it doesn't describe the specific mismatch in the stimulus. If it stated, for e.g. "overreported percentage of garments recycled as scrap" then this would help explain the discrepancy

We're given a phenomenon that Alfalfa grow less well in later years than earlier years despite having nitorgen, which is important for growth.

Why is it the case that the alfalfa is growing less well in later years?

C explains that alfalfa produce substances that when they accumulates are toxic to them. So the fact that alfalfa are growing less well in later years is not necessarily from nitrogen depletion, but rather from this toxic substance that may affect their growth.

A report is cited with a stat that traffic fatalities have decreased by 7% in areas that have strict laws requiring seat belts. However, in a particular area there have been strict laws for 2 yrs but number of traffic deaths have been the same.

Ask: Why has the number of traffic deaths remained the same, even though we're given evidence that they should decline?

C says that there's been an increase in auto traffic since the seat belts laws were passed. This would help explain because the more cars, chances are that the amt. of traffic accidents would increase.

E fails to explain because it tells us that within the two year window that this stimulus is talking about, most people who died WERE wearing seatbelts. We're given evidence that wearing seatbelts lowers traffic fatalities. This answer adds further to the mystery instead of explaining the paradox.

Passage: Critique/debate

Topic: Novel's themes of domesticity

MP: Though conventionally viewed as a domestic novel, Jacob's novel is actually antidomestic because it shows that experiences of salve women are different from free women.

Purpose: To address criticisms that Jacobs conformed to literary convetions of domesticity.

Viewpoints: Critics/Author

Attitude: Opposing critics

Structure: (unique 2-paragraph structure) Background (of the work)--> Critics + opposition of critcis + AU MP

Passage: Spotlight

Topic: Analysis of an ethnographic book

MP: In Nisa, Shostak challenges the ethnographic penchant for the general and anyonmous, instead creating a narrative that challenges traditional views.

Viewpoints: Author

Purpose: To analyze how Shostak challenges traditional ethnographic views through the three different narratives.

Structure: Thesis (3 things) --> Idea 1 --> Idea 2 --> Idea 3

P1: Shostaks book challenges ehtnographic penchants through discussing a woman's life in Botswana, metaphor about womn, and blurred distinction between subject and ethnographer.

P2: Nisa corrects Western misconceptions about simple societies and shows the hardships endured by these societies.

P3: Addresses a shortcoming in ethnographic literature about the woman's perspective about women.

P4: Story blurs distinction between ethnographer and ethnographic subject, creating a product of collaboration.

Between C and E.

E- like it but hesitant because it says that UV light is necessary for the chemical reaction. We don't know if it's the ONLY condition for forming a diamond, rather we just know that it's needed for this reaction. It could be likely that there are other things that cause diamonds to form.

C- I think this has more support because the contrapositive of one of the premises is that if there was enough UV light (which is reinforced by the stimulus), then there must not have been more than a trace of Oxygen. This means that it contained very little oxygen. The only thing that throws me off is "if any", idk if we can assume that.

Chose C because it seemed to have the most support. Correct.

@soleluna883 Preponderance can mean the majority.

Passage: Single positon

Topic: specific study abt us entertainment history

MP: until the author's study abt a specific African American artist, there has been insufficient scholarship about this artist.

Purpose: To discuss methodology and shed light on a new study.

Viewpoints: Au

Structure: Background + MP --> Support --> More support --> support

P1: there;s been insufficient scholarship about the u.s. entertainment history, and the au's current study helps address some of this.

P2: Various sources used for the study. Primary source is interview w/ subject/

P3: Advantages and disadvantages of a biographical study. Biographer has a duty to verify this information.

P4: Process of verification and final synthesis of research, which is a career biography.

I noticed this today and love it-- thank you!! Looking at other's posts helps with perspective and seeing their study journey. Love the private mode option as well.

@soleluna883 The correct answer here, E, is the one that has the most EXPLICIT support. Originally chose B but the second part of the sentence isn't accepted.