#help I crossed out C because I thought it was reversed. Can someone correct this?

What the fuck is this dickety dick question.

Is it safe to say that since the passage says "regardless of the kind of therapy," we can cross out ACs B, C, D, E, - since they all imply the results varying depending on different kinds of therapy? A is the only one that talks about the study's method.

#help

#help

I threw away C because it talked about other works. How do you differentiate whether it's an applicable parallel or not?

For example let's say a question is asking me to determine what would strengthen that Lily lied.

If an AC said: Lily's friend lied in the exact same circumstance, that would never be the answer wouldn't it?

#help

Can somebody help correcting my thoughts?

I initially thought the answer was B.

I figured since magnets intensify transmission and yet pain is reported low, it strengthens the conclusion that magnets work.

#help#help

Thanks for this. Would really appreciate some help on RC.

#help

I thought the author was presuming Arnot's assumption so I chose D.

Why is it not D?

Are you referring to the loophole book? If so, then yes. That book helped a ton.

Interested! How are you planning on proceeding this?

Can someone varify my explaination? #help

I got this right by crossing out wrong ACs but I was still curious why the right answer is right. Then I realized an almost obvious gap.

The premise mentions that there's no correlational relation. But then the conclusion suddenly introduces a new idea saying "if there's a causal relationship then blah blah.."

Well then you have to at least assume that the second and third experiment proves a causal relationship to make a connection.

D says we're not sure about that.

#help

I have a question.

The conclusion is that this practice risks US consumers. So, if others do it too, then stopping this practice won't change anything.

But even if others do practice this, doesn't it still not change the fact that this practice is dangerous?

Similar but different. I managed to increase the score I am scoring now by focusing on games. I can't seem to increase the rest.

#help

This was my thought process.

Okay, so the conclusion is arguing for a funding to protect the planet. The reason is that there's a chance of a meteor strike.

C was my initial choice, but I crossed it out because the "specific prediction" part is obviously referring to "we can expect that Earth will be struck...in the near future," and this is an intermediate conclusion.

Should I anticipate that there could be instances where the main conclusion is excluded during the flaw detecting proccess?

Couldn't make the reference that:

only = most

#help#help#help

I strongly think that this question would be cancelled in today's standards. I would love to hear other people's thoughts.

When I read "benefit them" in the passage, I had no idea that it referred to "others." I thought it referred to "one." So, I thought A was the answer.

You might say, well, "one" is one, and "them" is more than one. But these days, peope are sensitive about genders and thus use neutral pronouns such as "they" to refer to folks.

Plus, even without the pronoun discussion, I still crossed out C because the passage significantly says "generally succeed," while C says "never required."

Premise:

Intel prog → full imp → intel dis

Conclusion:

Wrong (intel prog → free thought)

SA:

intel dis → free thought

I made the right assumption: "maybe some needed the drugs"

But for some reason I still chose AC D. How come? I thought: "oh, so people who went through the wrong treatment needed drugs." But, I needed to find that reconciles with the fact that ALL patients need drugs. I fell in the trap the test makers exactly intended. How do I avoid similar future traps? First, I must put my attention to the details. Words like "all" or "some" are strong indicators.

I correctly diagramed but didn't conclude the flaw correctly. It must have been my inuition or something that led me to think that it's a correlational mistake.

It's better to think: "what if..." than "oh it's another classical X flaw."

After you read, you can easily anticipate: "what if the two 'some' situations don't happen at the same time?" Then it's not hard to find that B is saying exactly that.

The conclusion is talking about A children, and doesn't care about others.

My intial thought: this is a classic reversed sufficient and necessary condition. A is the answer.

I hastily read the conclusion; the conclusion doesn't say "no unpunished means no chaos." Instead, it's making the mistake of confusing with the term "routinely unpunished" and "never allowing any."

What I was looking for:

- For some reason, a slight change in production doesn't always lead to price change.

- Or the price change isn't due to rice being traded less free.

D: "They purchase commercially..." oh, so they're participating in the commercial economy; must be the answer.

Although I concede that I didn't think about the part that purchasing can raise the prices even more, I wonder: does purchasing more inevitably lead to rising prices? Is the thought "participating in the economy somehow helps revitalizing it and thus leads to stablized prices" unsound?

#help

I initially chose E but after BR I chose C.

When I read E again I was like, "this is a link between high nutrient and behavior,"

then when I read C, "well, this at strengthens at least a bit."

#help

I honestly just had a hard time understanding what the hell the passage was talking about.

Some dudes altered the genes of flies and thus lacked UV vision. So, flies that don't have UV vision must have something changed in their genes.

Much more easy.