I chose D by using POE - and this is my attempt to justify D. Let me know if this makes sense!

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) cold-blooded animals could not withstand cold temp in the arctic temperature; only warm-blooded animals could

(2) We found dinosaur fossils in the arctic

Concl:

• dinosaurs were warm-blooded

Initial Pre-phrasing / Gaps that I could think of:

• What if the temperature was warmer back then

AC Breakdown:

(A) - today's reptiles are irrelevant to the arg

(B) - how's the size tied to whether dinosaurs are warm- or cold-blooded?

(C) - this strengthens the arg

(D) - the dinosaurs were actually just passing by; they didn't inhabit in the arctic

(E) - this strengthens the arg; this indicates that the gap I identified is not the case

@steamboatwillie I agree with the flaw you identified - that just because there are 2 things that share the same definition doesn't mean these 2 things are the same.

I think the concl is the first sentence and the last sentence is the intermediate concl.

Because taxing earnings from labor is pernicious, therefore the govt has no right to tax earnings from labor. If you flip the order, the sentences don't logically follow.

The key to this question is to diagram imo...

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) Dean --> respected AND competent

(2) respected --> PhD

(3) competent --> know computer

(4) Dean --> uni staff

Combine the above

Dean --> PhD, and know computer, and uni staff

Concl:

Dean --> prof from CS

Gap / Assumption:

PhD + know computer + uni staff --> prof from CS

AC Breakdown:

(A): not necessarily / scope too broad. We are only talking about respected deans. Also, it's irrelevant to our gap

(B): Prof --> PhD; wrong direction

(C): prof + PhD --> know computer; again wrong direction

(D) PhD --> respected; irrelevant to our gap

(E): PhD + know computer --> in CS dept; this is the closest to our gap.

If this is wrong, that there are people with PhDs who know computers outside of the CS department, then the argument falls apart

Did anyone else read B wrong 😑 - I read as Seclee is a region within Martown...

I eliminated A because I didn't understand what it was saying. Here is my attempt to explain:

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

• fake environmentalists opposed almost all development proposals on the ground of harming the environment

Concl:

• [intermediate] they are actually anti-development, and concerning for the environment is just a ruse

• [overall] dismiss their concerns

Task: NA for the intermediate conclusion

Gap: how do we know that's the case? What if they are genuinely concerned with the environment?

AC Breakdown:

(A): some proposals opposed by these fake environmentalists are not opposed on the ground of environmental concerns.

• In another word, they object the proposals on the ground of high expense

What does it mean? Let's negate:

• every development proposal was objected because the environmentalists believed it to pose a threat to the environment

• [Implication]: so maybe the environmentalists were actually concerned with the environment --> destroying the argument

(B): "always" is too strong

(C): "anyone" --> not necessary

(D) - irrelevant what the council thinks

(E) - "solely" - too strong

Stim Breakdown:

Conservative:

Prem:

(1) Socialists analyze trends and claim socialist future is inevitable

(2) you can't identify the trends as the history goes on; you can only tell trends once they are in the past

Concl (implicit):

• socialists' claim about inevitable socialist future is BS

Socialist:

Prem:

(1) outcome is inevitable --> would not work hard to transform

The socialist implies that but because socialists are working hard to transform the institutions, they don't think the outcome is inevitable

(2) Transform --> understand --> historical analysis

Concl:

• historical analysis is important

Task: point of issue

AC Breakdown:

(A) - I initially chose this one, but I focused on the wrong details

This means that a socialist society is the inevitable consequence of historical trends - the part after "that" is modifier of historical trends

However, the socialist doesn't think socialism is the inevitable outcome / he doesn't disagree with the conservative

(B) - the conservative doesn't mention anything about capitalism

(C) - again, neither is saying socialism is inevitable. They actually believe in the contrary

(D) - the conservative believes in this, and the socialist doesn't express his opinion on this

(E) - this addresses the motive of historical analysis

The conservative believes that the socialists analyze historical trends to prove the inevitable socialist outcome

The socialist believes that socialists analyze historical trends to understand and transform capitalistic institutions.

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

• Deterioration of cells –corr→ glutamate

• glutamate leaked from damaged cells → glutamate can cause nerve cells killed 

Concl:

• glutamate from damaged / starved-cells –cause→ long-term brain damage 

Pre-phrased Gap / Assumption:

1. Stroke → damaged / O2-starved nerve cells

2. There’s indeed glutamate leakage from damaged cells - (can vs. actually happen)

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this weakens the argument - there could be other neurotransmitters that cause the damage

(B) - this doesn’t address the correlation-causation gap

(C) - it doesn’t strengthen; the author doesn’t care if there are other neurotransmitters that leak from damaged nerve cells

(D) - this is the right answer; this is addressing gap (2)

(E) - two reasons I don’t like this AC

• can vs. actually happen; we don’t know if actually happens

• Even if it happens, this is implied by the stimulus. We are not assuming that the nerves automatically die.

Stim Breakdown:

phenomenon: big houses have narrower floorboards compared to small houses

explanation: big houses were built by richer people, so using narrow floorboards was a status symbol

Initial Pre-phrased Assumption / Gap:

1. Narrow boards were not used for practical reasons. In other words, the builders of big houses could use either wide or narrow floorboards, but they chose to use narrow floorboards

2. Narrow boards were more expensive

AC Breakdown:

(A) - two reasons I don't like this AC:

• the comparison of # of floorboards survived is irrelevant

• this could weaken the argument; how do we know that small houses didn't use as many narrow boards as big houses originally

(B) - a little bit confusing initially, but here is the breakdown:

• you need more narrow boards than wide boards.

• Since their prices are comparable or narrow boards could be more expensive, you will need to spend more $$ when using narrow boards --> support the arg

(C) - numbers of rooms are irrelevant to the argument

(D) -

• we don't know if these houses are big or small - not sure how this is relevant to our arg

• as some of the other comments have mentioned, this could weaken the argument, since the owners didn't want people to see the narrow boards

(E) - this is irrelevant to our conclusion - that narrow floor boards is a status symbol

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) C-14 found in 1.2 billion-year old rocks

(2) C-14 extracted by life (e.g., plants)

Concl:

• life began on land, and/or

• life existed more than 0.5 billion years ago

Initial Prephrased Gap / Assumptions:

1. C-14 in rocks were extracted by life

2. Rocks have always been on land / never been in water

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this is a direct evidence that life existed more than 0.5 billion years ago

(B) - this is a direct support for the conclusion that life began on land / not the ocean

(C) - this is same as #2 in our prephrased gaps

(D) - this weakens the argument; this is attacking assumption #1. What if the C-14 was not extracted by life, but entered directly from air

(E) - this validates that the rocks are indeed 1.2 billion years - in favor of our argument

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

1. Make long journey to/from the island → must have eaten sea animals

2. no paintings of sea animals

Concl:

• the painting cannot be of their current diets

Prephrase gaps:

1. Why did they have to paint an exhaustive list of animals they ate? 

2. Why can’t they be inhabitants of the island? Why did they have to travel?

3. Why did they have to eat sea animals while traveling?

4. Why couldn’t they change their diet after arriving on the island?

5. Paintings could be missing

I was between (A) and (C):

(A) weakens; this is the same as #4

Because the painters could have stopped eating sea animals, they didn’t have to paint sea animals → so why can’t their paintings be of the current diet

(C) - so what there are land animals. The argument is focusing on the fact that there’s no sea animals

This is such a dumb question...

Stim Breakdown:

• one photo that John said it resembled him but his friends said the contrary - WHY?

AC Breakdown:

(A) - "style of dress he and his friends usually wear" - his friends would say that the photo resembled him then

(B) - still doesn't explain why he and his friends have divergent opinions

(C) - again, same issue with (B)

(D) - the photographer took the picture of him from John's perspective (aka his mirror image); whereas his friends have always been seeing his actual image

I didn't pick this one initially because I thought WTF - SIGH SO DUMB

(E) - "one of few" - then John wouldn't have said that this was the only photo that did resemble him

Stim Breakdown:

• P plankton population decrease to normal → decrease of domoic acid 

(side note: I thought this acid is something LSAC made up but it actually is a neurotoxin)

Task: why is this the case?

AC Breakdown:

(A) - P plankton is one of the species that cause anchovies to secrete domoic acid. What about other varieties of planktons? We don’t know if domoic acid for sure decreases 

(B) - toxic →very very large population of P plankton

• now we don’t have a very very large population of P plankton anymore → anchovy is not toxic

(C) - this doesn’t explain why it’s safe to eat anchovies now

(D) - this doesn’t mention whether the level of domoic acid has decreased or not

(E) - /[significant level of domoic acid + other compounds] → /[large number of P Plankton]

Right now, we don’t have a large number of P Plankton, but is it because of the decrease of domoic acid? Sufficiency - necessity confusion

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) TV became popular in urban area 5 years before in rural area

(2) Murder rate in urban area increased 4 years before in rural area

Concl:

• TV –cause→ murder

Ways to strengthen:

1. Eliminate alternative hypothesis

2. Provide a causal chain

3. make the explanation more plausible

AC Breakdown:

(A) - 2 issues:

1. this is just simply a correlation; we need something that cements the causal relationship

2. how do we know when # of violent programs on TV is high, the homicide rate is also high? 

(B) - this explicitly outlines the causal relationship

• It’s reasonable to assume that there’s violence portrayal on TV

(C) - irrelevant / doesn’t help with the argument

(D) - irrelevant; we don’t care about earlier vs. later exposure

(E) - increase leisure time –cause→ violence

• this is assuming that more TV –cause→ more leisure time; but this causal chain is not supported / assumption not warranted

Stim Breakdown:

X:

Prem: no-indoor seating + few people want to sit outside because of the fumes on 10th street

Concl: not surprised the fast food place is closed

M:

Prem: no indoor seating on 10th street -cause-> high possibility of failure

Concl: bank is irresponsible to lend money to restaurants with no indoor seating

Task: what do they agree on?

AC Breakdown:

(A) - the scope is too broad. This is true for restaurants on 10th street, but this statement is too general. I don't mind sitting in Central Park to have a bagel for example

(B) - X never said anything about if bank should finance or not

(C) - this is sufficiency-necessity confusion. We know what would not work, but we don't know what would work

(D) - we don't know what will happen if restaurants have outdoor seating

(E) - this is supported by both X and M. Opening a restaurant with no indoor seating was not a good idea/ risky

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) Most participants consistently rate abstract painting is aesthetically better than a child's painting

Concl:

• abstract paintings are aesthetically pleasing

Gap:

• Just because a painting is better than than a child's paining, does it mean that it is aesthetically pleasing?

  (relative vs. absolute)

AC Breakdown:

(A) - not necessary.

If we negate this: people are not as good / equally as good at judging the aesthetic value of a painting when they compare it with another painting.

This has nothing to do with our conclusion, that the abstract paintings are aesthetically pleasing

(B) - negate: most of the preschoolers' paintings used in the study were aesthetically displeasing (aka ugly)

If they are ugly, then can we say that abstract paintings are aesthetically pleasing just because they are less ugly than the children's paintings? It definitely makes us doubt the conclusion

(C) - negate: what if the paintings don't have labels? Can't people still rate abstract paintings better than children's paintings

(D) - this is not necessary. The premise mentioned that most people rated abstract paintings as better consistently, so it doesn't matter what the people who did not rate consistently do.

(E) - not necessary. We don't care about the stylistic similarities.

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this doesn't weaken - whether Maravall participated a protest against the govt has no bearing to his argument

(B) - again it doesn't weaken - nobility and monarchs were on the same side to oppress the mass

(C) - this supports the argument - that the art was a device to spread monarchical propaganda

(D) - this weakens the argument

(E) -

• this would be in line with Maravall's argument

• Franco era and the baroque era were in different times

(I initially chose (B) - here is why it's wrong)

AC Breakdown:

(A) - we don't 2 point of views to contrast and evaluate

(B) - two issues:

• "widely-accepted": a stretch. The passage just mentioned "some scholars"

• (Bigger issue): it doesn't challenge the viewpoint. The author is not saying baroque was NOT used to oppress people, but rather Maravall overestimated its effectiveness

(C) - (I didn't know what explicate means 🤦‍♀️ - it means "analyze") - the author analyzes Maravell's interpretation, offers his/her PoV, and backs up with evidence (aka introduce a qualification)

(D) - no reconciliation in the passage

(E) - unprecedented consequence - ???? not supported

AC Breakdown:

(A) - econ is never a part of this passage

(B) - anti-supported - baroque theaters were used to distract the public

(C) - this is correct - "these enticements deflected the desire for novelty into areas of life where it represented no challenge to the political order" (bread and circus)

(D) - anti-supported - baroque theaters were used to suppress the mass

(E) - anti-supported - it was used to distract people

AC Breakdown:

(A) - anti-supported - "as public opinion grew increasingly important"

(B) - not posed by the aristocracy - the aristocrats were on the monarch's side - "monarchs, having suppressed the worst excesses of aristocratic disorder, could now ally themselves with their nobilities"

(C) - this is author's PoV, not Maravall's - "the rulers themselves, not the subjects, succumbed to the illusions"

(D) - this is the right AC. The whole point of the passage is about the author trying to convince that using baroque to manipulate the public is not an effective tactic. Hence, the author must believe that Maravall thought that baroque was an effective tactic.

(E) - nothing in the passage mentioned cultural preeminence

For Qs that are about the meaning in a context, it has to match 2 criteria (s/o to Katie Mae for this lesson):

1. the word itself has that meaning

2. the meaning in the context

The word "directive" cannot mean any of the ACs but (D)

(E) - compelling is defined as "something that demands attention, is irresistibly interesting, or highly convincing" - that is not the meaning of directive as standalone

Low-res summary:

P1: Introduce a school of thinking and spotlight a representative scholar (JAM)

P2: Provide context of JAM's theory / describe backdrop of baroque period (monarchical absolutism)

P3: Further elaborate how baroque is connected to monarchical absolutism - i.e., it's a method to manipulate public opinions by using extravagance to distract the population (like bread and circus)

P4: Author's PoV (JAM exaggerated how successful these tactics were to the public) and offered example to support

(C) is the correct answer. This attitude is also reflected in the correct AC of the previous Q

Low-res summary:

P1: Introduce a school of thinking and spotlight a representative scholar (JAM)

P2: Provide context of JAM's theory / describe backdrop of baroque period (monarchical absolutism)

P3: Further elaborate how baroque is connected to monarchical absolutism - i.e., it's a method to manipulate public opinions by using extravagance to distract the population (like bread and circus)

P4: Author's PoV (JAM exaggerated how successful these tactics were to the public) and offered example to support

AC Breakdown:

(A) - the first part was not supported - nowhere in the passage mentioned "until recently, baroque has regarded simply as an aesthetic style"

(B) - correct AC

(C) - anti-supported - baroque culture was used to counter Renaissance influence

(D) - "examples of specific baroque-era monarchies" - not mentioned in the passage

(E) - this is only a part of the passage; it doesn't reflect author's PoV

Side note: I haven't seen this type of Qs in the new PTs...This is a parallel method of reasoning Q.

Stim Breakdown:

Pamela:

Prem:

• Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for their children, because these children are future customers / employees

Concl:

• Business should adopt child-care friendly policies

Lee:

Prem:

• These children will not be the only customers / employees of the business

Concl:

• Company doesn't have advantage in adopting these policies

Method of Reasoning: pointing out additional factors that will impact the business

AC Breakdown:

(A) - we are not introducing a new additional consideration here. The MoR of A is the alternative would be even worse

(B) - additional factor / consideration (i.e., "pollutions caused by others") is introduced - so yayay correct AC

(C) - this is attacking the assumption of the arg

(D) - this is refuting the intermediate concl (i.e., no one would know what the truth is)

(E) - this is attacking the assumption that historically there were changes, therefore there will be changes in the future

Stim Breakdown:

Pedro:

Prem:

• disposable diapers are filling landfills so quickly

Concl:

• people must stop buying disposable diapers

Maria:

Prem:

• Washing cloths diapers requires energy + pollute water

• Also, diaper services pollute air and cause traffic congestion

Task: method of reasoning

AC Breakdown:

(A) - Maria doesn't disagree with Pedro's arg at all; she doesn't think he's exaggerating the negative consequences of disposable diapers

(B) - correct AC - Maria points out that Pedro doesn't consider the negative consequences of the cloths diaper. Pedro is simply eliminating the alternatives - so many bad consequences with disposable diapers, therefore the alternative must be better. Maria is saying there are bad consequences for the alternative too

(C) - there's no ambiguity. We know exactly what they are

(D) - this is a trap answer, but we actually don't know in Maria's opinion, which one is worse for the environment. She's simply pointing out that there are neg consequences for cloths diapers too

(E) - we don't know anything about economic advantage

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

• Each pair of 2-year old and his dad used a unique rolling pin to make pies (aww so cute)

• each time a 2 year-old used a rolling pin, his dad yelled "rolling pin"

• However, the children can only identify the rolling pins they used when identifying all the rolling pins

AC Breakdown:

(A) - not supported - the children may very well have good grasp of what a rolling pin does

(B) - this is correct - because the children only chose the rolling pins that they used. They didn't understand rolling pin can be the name of the other rolling pins they didn't use. In another word, they don't know rolling pin is a category of objects

(C) - not supported - we don't know if children understood that

(D) - this is tricky, but the scope is too broad. The AC is saying "utensils", but the stim only talks about rolling pins. The children might be able to identify forks that other children used

(E) - anti-supported. If this is true, then the children would just randomly pick a rolling pin, not the one they used