@AndrewPerry I think the difference for PT112.S1.Q18 is that the conclusion is a causal conclusion that "exercise lowers blockage of arteries". It reaches that conclusion by stating that "lowering cholesterol lowers blockage of arteries", and that "if data is correct, exercise lowers cholesterol".

• Another way of diagramming this would be

  • Premise: B -causes-> C

  • Premise: If data is correct --> (A -causes-> B)

  • Conclusion: A -causes-> C

• In order to reach the conclusion, which is just the causal chain of A causes B causes C simplified, we have to trigger the sufficient condition of the second premise, which is what AC D accomplishes.

• AC D is a Sufficient Assumption that makes the conclusion 100% valid.

This question on the other hand is a necessary assumption, so it must be necessary if the conclusion is true. The conclusion for this question is also a conditional conclusion, meaning it does not ACTUALLY have to be the case that public opinion is what Monica says it is.

I interpreted this sentence to further support B:

Applying the notion of retained rights to the domain of intellectual property, theorists argue that copyrighting a work secures official recognition of one's intention to retain certain rights to that work.

"Theorists" here are the proponents of the tangible-object theory, and because they are applying retained rights to intellectual property, that implies some agreement with other applications of retained rights.

@arianacardwell But there's no mention of procedures common to most legal systems.

Can't believe I misread the year in the question as 1991.

For some reason the second sentence of the stimulus seemed to me like it was talking about a subset of societies, ones that were "properly functioning". That made me way too cautious when choosing C.

For MSS, is that reading incorrect?

@AddisonMiller How long did it take you to close that gap? Thanks!

@calliekoskovich Do you mean that:

"C is wrong because the critics conclusion is the fact that the distinction between "literary and genre" does not make sense"

The claim we are looking at is an implication of other peoples argument (making the distinction between "literary " and "genre" and only interpreting the themes and ideas.)

The critic is arguing that the other people's claim of distinctions leads to/implies a loss of emotional impact, and thus we should not make such distinctions.

@Itachi119I found the analogy and diagramming pretty helpful tbh

What is helping me understand this argument is connecting parts of the argument to concepts that are less abstract.

1. "if they successfully resist a desire to do wrong" = overcome a bad temptation, like stopping yourself from shoplifting

1. "extinguishing all such desires" = monk-status, temptations never appear in the first place

1. "not inclined to do otherwise" = seems pretty close to monk-status

so the Ethicist says it would be a mistake to say that someone who has reached monk-status does not deserve praise for doing the right thing.

The ethicist concedes that those who experience temptations, but then overcome them deserve praise/are especially virtuous. But they are just praiseworthy/no less virtuous as those who have achieved monk status and have no temptations in the first place.

The Other Persons Position is that those who are /tempted to do wrong --> /deserve praise, or that to deserve praise, temptation is required. The Ethicist is conceding that those who are tempted to do wrong and resist do in fact deserve praise, but those who are NOT tempted in the first place ALSO deserve praise.

AC B: This points out how the fact that those who resist temptation deserve praise does not mean that a LACK of temptation means you no longer deserve praise.

@sx0302387 "incapable of making new contributions" is a claim about the future, which matches AC A, "impossible..to improve"

Is this not a primary purpose question #admin

@christophergiordano I think the conclusion can be either one of those sentences. What matters more is connecting the concepts of "casting additional votes on behalf of their underage children" to the concept of "receiving fair representation"

AC E: connects the two concepts, and if negated the argument falls apart.

@AlexiusFrazee-King

I think stimulus is laying out a rule in the premises, and we have to choose the AC that triggers the rule.

The rule: "where forests are unnaturally crowded with immature trees --> moths are beneficial" (Replace "where" with "if" and this becomes a classic conditional statement)

AC A: more than half the forest is unnaturally crowded with immature trees

Analogous argument:

Premise: If the sky is cloudy --> it will rain soon

____

conclusion: It will rain soon

AC A: the sky is cloudy

Basically the entire question rests on whether you noticed the word "free".

Plant A received FREE breakfasts

Plan B did not receive free nutritious breakfasts, but it's entirely possible they still ate nutritious breakfasts.

To strengthen the argument, we eliminate the alternative hypothesis that the Plant B workers also ate nutritious breakfasts.

@bella_kr But it could be just as possible that Plant A was LESS productive than plant B before the study.

Choosing one version over the other requires an unwarranted assumption.

@treigysmartynas592 Yea passage A explicitly says the duty of truth telling is an independent constraint on our actions, and also a "normative force" for judges not to lie or mislead in their opinions.

So judges "ought" not to lie or mislead.

AC A talks about a judge believing some but not all of the reasons in a judicial decision. Is that not just being misleading or being dishonest? That seems to clearly violate the moral principle Passage A favors, and Author of passage A would seem to agree that this is a violation.

Author of passage B seems to implicitly disagree, since he prefers a cost-benefit calculus that factors in good or bad outcomes.

Oh well

I interpreted B to be about people misdiagnosing themselves. For example, during the COVID pandemic there was research studying the incidence of the common cold to see if there were any increases/decreases from the average rates. COVID and the common cold had similar symptoms, and the concern was that people were either getting COVID and believing they just had the cold, or that people were getting the common cold and thinking they had COVID. If during a certain period of time a significant amount of people get the cold and instead believe they have COVID, that would lead to decreased rates of the cold during that period of time.

AC B states the common cold has similar symptoms, and yet the incidence remains the same.

Wouldn't that eliminate the alternative explanation of people misdiagnosing themselves (believing they have the common cold when they really have influenza) for why the incidence of influenza was much lower?

#help

@CaseySteffen I think an analogy could be like analyzing dinosaur fossils to see if they were herbivores or carnivores. Just because they are attempting to find out, does not mean they WILL determine whether the dinosaurs are herbivores or carnivores. Its possible they fail in their efforts or lack the evidence to reach a conclusions.

@amartino123139 I think the clearer reason why we can say Roach Ender was tested against MORE than 4,000 species is because the stimulus says "we have conducted many well-documented studies that prove THIS FACT". "This fact" refers to how "vexone has been utilized effectively for almost a decade against all of the species", and we also know there are more than 4,000 species.

@SlippinJimmy2026

This is how I interpreted it:

"how well the group sells is no mark of success"

if it sells well that does not mean is was successful

if it does not sell that does not mean it was successful

basically, selling well/poorly has no impact of success.

a group can sell well and be unsuccessful, and a group can not sell well and be unsuccessful.

I believe that the flipped version is also true: sell well and be successful, or not sell well and still be successful. (but the question isn't concerned with that part)

So if we focus on this starting point (sell well vs not sell well), and we know each has a possible outcome (too trendy to be authentic + group incompetence), then we need to connect that with the conclusion of "no mark of success"

The "most helps to justify" makes this a PSA, and I think it allows for the jump from "not selling well" to "weak sales".

@oldguy I interpreted "environmental influences" to mean external influences, like family and upbringing.

The Psychologists Hypothesis is that our inclinations are genetic in origin, and not subject to environmental influences. But AC D says environmental influences (one twin reacting to the other twin and differentiating as a result) do actually impact inclinations (differing beliefs/careers).

That weakens the hypothesis because it suggests that inclinations are not solely caused by genetics.

(I interpreted "in order to" as causal language. The twins desire to differentiate themselves causes them to develop differing inclinations)

@worksabirwork271 Personally I agree, and I think the "radius of 49 kilometers" is a distraction and irrelevant to choosing C. We can trigger the sufficient condition "maintain orbit" without it.

@77 the stimulus says that hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by the disease. So they contract gill disease, but die before it does any harm to them. They're a carrier that dies before any symptoms actually harm them.

@HimajaReddy how is this a weakening question?