@mitsuyat5220 I had the same confusion as you for a while, but the main detail that helped me work it out was the initial few words: "One of the claims of laissez-faire economics..."

The author's argument is based on disproving this one claim within the grander theory of laissez-faire economics. So when they conclude that "laissez-faire economics is not entirely accurate," this can be restated as "This one aspect of laissez-faire economics - specifically that increasing the minimum wage decreases the number of minimum wage jobs available - is wrong, therefore the theory as a whole is not entirely accurate." They're basically trying to prove that the entire minimum wage aspect of this theory is wrong with the fast food study.

We mistakenly understood the conclusion to refer to a part of a part (minimum wage outlier example within minimum wage aspect), rather than part to whole (minimum wage aspect within entire laissez-faire theory).

A 5-star question for #9 is dirty work

@Tannercho06897 I would say A doesn't help because regardless of the number of people in either group, the percentages still stay the same. Remember, we have to take the premises to be absolutely true. So if there were 1,000 slackers looking for jobs, versus only 50 conscientious people looking for jobs, it still doesn't change the fact that a higher percentage of the slackers are more likely to find jobs than conscientious people in this scenario. Which in that case, we're still left wondering why these percentages differ, meaning that A does not help to explain the phenomenon.

Also, like @Kevin_Lin said, your explanation actually runs counter to what the premises say: "The more bodies in the workforce, the lower your chances of being hired are." This is anti-supported by the stimulus, which literally says that the slackers had a higher chance of being hired.

I feel like a lot of the explanations in the comments (and even the tutor explanations) severely overcomplicated this question... idk. Basically, the flaw I saw in the argument is that even if the press agent did not tell every reporter everything, the premises still MANDATE that "All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent said." The premises also say that a reporter can scoop out other reporters only if they know more about any incident. So if the press agent tells all reporters 50% of the story, the premises mandate that every single reporter only knows 50% of the story, and therefore, no one can scoop anyone else out. So, AC (E) - "No reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter" - is consistent with the facts - the press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the incident.

@Kevinli763 For me, I realized D didn't help explain as opposed to the other answers because it was just straight up a hypothesis. All the other ACs are directly establishing a causal relationships between these people's characteristics and the phenomena the researcher found, whereas D just offers some random explanation. Remember, a hypothesis isn't definitively true. Some point down the line, the psychologists' hypothesis could be proven false. Then that definitely wouldn't help to explain the stim.

You're right in saying asking "isn't the 'people who repress upsetting thoughts and feelings from conscious awareness' also part of their characteristics," but that's not what makes the answer incorrect. It's the 1) direction of causality, and 2) the "some psychologists have hypothesized."

So in WAY simpler terms, you just have to make sure that promising someone to do something is equivalent to being "ought" to do something. You have to make sure the example is perfectly analogous to the principle, or else the example would have nothing to do with the principle.

D is wrong because of the negation test. What if it were the case that if we had to hire more teachers, and unfortunately, all of them were underqualified- and it improved the achievement of ONE student? Remember, the negation of "not any" (aka ZERO) is one. Does improving the student of achievement of ONE student in the entire district mean that overall student achievement has improved? I probably wouldn't say so... Which is why the argument can still stand.

The free class in this module was super helpful for figuring out why D is wrong. They say, to do the negation test, try to negate it in the smallest step possible. "Not any" is negated to 1. It's easier to see how the argument can still stand through this negation test.

Can you also say B is wrong in the humidity question because you could weasel through that answer by saying you don't necessarily have to "suffer" to be ill? And therefore, the argument still stands?

@ZealousAltruisticMode Great explanation!!

@Stas1973 This was SUCH a good explanation and I needed this like two months ago when I took this PT lol. Basically, we just need some statement establishing the truth of the fact that if Selena's claim is false, we can't determine if having psychic powers is possible. B does exactly that: says "If Selena does NOT have psychic powers, it is not possible to have them."

1:27 MM flip it around, Wicked Witch...

"viruses they didn't like"😭 this video is olddd

This is not really answering your question sorry but I did want to ask how you got to the point of scoring low 170s? I cannot break out of the 155 PT / ~170 Blind Review spot and it's really frustrating me :/

Hi! Unsure if you still have availability, but I'd love to take some sessions from you.

Hi! Would love a consultation if you're available :)

For some reason, switching the question stem into flaw language made SO much more sense to me. I don't know why it's so much harder for me to wrap my head around questions when they say "weaken."

@owenm After some thought, I eliminated E because it would actually strengthen the argument. It makes sense that at first glance, basing a judgment off of an unrepresentative sample is a bad thing. However, the stim says that this cardiologist is highly skilled. Meaning, that if E were true, the majority of cardiologists would actually be worse than this cardiologist at correctly identifying heart attacks. Therefore, strengthening the conclusion that we should switch over to computers completely. But the argument wants something to weaken, not strengthen.

I figured this one out quickly because I realized that if Pat got the coupon, watched less than 10 videos, but got it somewhere else than the Main St location, something HAD to be differentiating her from all the qualifiers just stated. Re-read the first part: "Members of the viewers club." It does not say that ONLY members of the viewers club can get the coupon. So Pat must not be a member of the club.

Can someone explain the differences between this and Must Be True questions? For both answers, my current understanding is that if negated/falsified, the argument falls apart. Is one just stating the obvious, and another says something specific to the content of the stimulus?

@jwn1060 This is a good approach. Yeah, I don't think I should give up blind review entirely, but 1) doing shorter drills and 2) critically thinking about my incorrect answers will be the best solution here.

@jwn1060 I was doing occasional drilling (like, very occasional), and I got confident with those when I started seeing improved scores. I now realize I think I need to focus on those almost entirely. Thanks for the RC suggestion as well, I'll definitely try that out.