so the argument states: there are differences in distance from earth from stars in one distant galaxy are nothing comparing to the huge galaxyy itself. So if two stars are in the same distant galaxy, any crazy difference in the brightness of those stars results from differences in how brightly each is burning.

conclusion: so we can determine how the brightness correlates with other characteristics by studying stars in the same distant galaxy

so if we know they are in the same distant galaxy, and we see brightness, we can determine how other characterisitcs play a role

MBT + Negation Test

Does this have to be true?

A) if two stars are in two different galaxies, we dk and do not care. the stimulus does not talk about that

B) In the elements? What elements? they said characteristics, we cannot assume characterisitcs and elements are the same thing

C) we don't know what our own galaxy or their distances

D) this has to be true

E) depends on whether they are in the same distant galaxy

D is the only one that has to be true

if negated

There are stars in distant galaxes that do not have characteristics, other than brightness, discernible from Earth

if we cannot discern these characterisitics from Earth, than how will we determine how a star's relative actual brightness correlates with other characteristics by studying stars?

Was kind of confused but I understand.

A) should (normative language) when no should is present in stim

B) openly discuss does not equate to debated

C) Not all pernicious ideas are misconceptions

translates: Some pernicious ideas are not misconceptions.

where can we derive this from the stimulus? we can't

D) perfectly aligns :

discussion --> diminishes appeal of the idea

debate --> gain popularity

we cannot assume popularity is truth so this is correct.

E) i cannot infer this

the argumet is having traffic cameras does not increase traffic safety, why because there are fewer side impact collisions, but much more rear-impact collisions.

to weaken this: traffic cameras does increase traffic safety

A) other issues are not relevant, we only care about traffic safety

B) some undeserved tickets don't matter, this is about traffic safety and some is weak

C) whose fault it is while driving is not necessary, there are fewer side impact collisions anyways (indirectly strengthens imo)

D) Since having traffic cameras led to fewer side impact collisions, but much more rear-impact collisions., than we can safely conclude that because "Side-impact collisions are a much greater safety threat than rear-impact collisions." the addition to traffic cameras greatly benefitted traffic safety, which attacks the argument.

e) what does this even do?

hey maybe they do increase traffic safety?

are u planning to apply this year

if u are capable of all of that, i know well that you are capable of a 170 plus, keep studying. your potential is far greater than a 152

Good Luck You will literally do AMAZINGGGGGGGG I am manifesting it for you now!!!!!

hides

ME ME ME PLS

start drilling one question at a time, start with questions that can be answered solely from the stimulus, drill drill drill, break all the ACS apart, slow and steady. it will truly make a difference.

yall we can literally do a zoom and walk eachother through the hardest questions please lmk

I am interested

A.

A company must have efficient employees to be successful. If employees are knowledgeable and hardworking, they are probably efficient. Thus, for a company to be successful, it must have knowledgeable and hardworking employees.

Mapping:

1. Successful → Efficient

2. (Knowledgeable + hardworking) → Efficient

3. ∴ Successful → (Knowledgeable + hardworking)

Flaw type: Invalid chain (mixing two sufficient conditions → creating a new link that doesn’t follow). Not our pattern. We want If A → B; not B → not A but here they combine two “Ifs” instead.

B.

The fact that the suspect was flustered might be a result of surprise. If surprised → probably not guilty. ∴ The fact the suspect was flustered isn’t necessarily a sign of guilt.

Mapping:

1. Surprise → ¬Guilty

2. Flustered (possible surprise)

3. ∴ Flustered doesn’t prove guilty

Structure: More like “correlation ≠ causation” and weakening an inference. Not conditional reasoning. ❌

C. ✅ Correct

Oil companies are not buying new drilling equipment. If they were planning to increase drilling → they would be buying new equipment. ∴ They are not planning to increase drilling.

Mapping:

1. Increase drilling → Buy equipment

2. ¬Buy equipment

3. ∴ ¬Increase drilling

Exactly the same as the stimulus: Life → Water / ¬Water → ¬Life ✅ Modus Tollens

D.

The price of real estate in a town is increasing. If the town’s economy were improving → prices would increase. ∴ The town’s economy is improving.

Mapping:

1. Improving economy → Prices ↑

2. Prices ↑

3. ∴ Improving economy

This is “affirming the consequent.” If A → B, B → ∴ A ❌ invalid form.

E.

The exports of a nation have decreased. Whenever exports ↓ → trade deficit ↑. ∴ The nation’s trade deficit has increased.

Mapping:

1. Exports ↓ → Deficit ↑

2. Exports ↓

3. ∴ Deficit ↑

This one is Modus Ponens (If A → B; A → ∴ B). That’s valid, but it’s the opposite form of the stimulus (which was Modus Tollens).

i remember when S/N questions used to be so damn hard, but now they are easy finally.