Hey I think you misread what some support meant. Its a subtle way of saying "strengthens" . I actually got it right the first time but then used blind review to choose B- an error on my part!lol!

Same here! Tricky..

I thought that choice D was weakening the argument by allowing for an alternative- instead of refunding, plow the money into the economy via construction projects? #help

Pacing the floor and chewing my nails! GGrrrrrrrrhhhhhhh!

#help (Added by Admin)

I was able to zero in on the weakening aspect that the reason why books of intrinsic value are not being published as much is not because of the fact that the publishers are after money but because the books themselves are in decline.

This is ROYALLY messed up! I chose C and not D! Because I thought that to assume that the cause of cancer is environmental pollution is way-way out there because envt. pollution was not mentioned. SOmehow i am not satisfied with the explanation- Can any 7Sager chip in- Anybody? Help!!!

Can someone PLEASE explain this- I chose C as the right answer and yet it was D.

#help (Added by Admin)

La Grande- On a streak y'all! Bring it on 5/5! yay!

This is a strengthen EXCEPT question

Year 1992- 250 rescues of mountain climbers

Cost to Government- $3 million - wow

25 fatalities from climbing mishaps.

Proposal by Task Force- Bonding arrangement in large sum to be forfeited in case of calamity.

A- The burden should not be on the taxpayers for a hobby by daredevils.

B- The government should be able to take measures that stop people from risking their lives- what measure- hefty bond.

D- The bond would make you pay more since you use public services in times of rescue than those that arent daredevil climbers

E- Daredevils should be made to pay to support their hobby since it is not beneficial to others.

C- Goes on a tangent- issuing of permits to those trained in the sport of mountain climbing. Really? It does nothing to strengthen the proposal of the task force. It actually in essence weakens it.

C is the right answer.

La Grande!

The perfect time to expand would be before the passenger traffic picks up. Since it was two years ago that the decline started and it takes 5 years for passenger volume to pick up and exceed its current level, it implies that we are in the third year from what the author is saying. if so, then the most logical thing to do is to initiate the expansion because of the low volume in passenger travel.Choice B is right on the money then!

La Grande!

La Grande!

So I spotted A as a trap answer choice and didnt spot D as well- actually chose D- dang! I eliminated B because I thought that for it to be right I would have to assume but then turns out to be right.

Hey @tristandesinor505 it might look bleak, impossible a feat and dark BUT you have what it takes to ace this test. DO NOT GIVE UP! DO NOT DESPAIR! Believe you can and you will - you might need to take a break like others have suggested. just a day or two off from studying to relax and engage in a hobby you like. That might be all you need.

@greybrownblue488 your question made you look like you were as high on caffeine as possible, red-eyed, sleep deprived and raging! LOL!

I should have thought about your second paragraph. Yes this question was a toughie and I was down to both the A and B. B is the correct choice because it weakens the conclusion that the workers are there to gain experience while being paid low salary- experience being the compensation. I fell for the bait A question because of the comparison, forgetting that the salary GENERALLY ranks low with other competitors.

How is E consistent with the premise?

See! The mistake I made in this question was to misread the stem. I was weakening the stimulus and not the objection in my reasoning and analysis. If it was to weaken the objection that was saying that the government should be left out of it, then E is the answer not tricky A

o see how (B) weakens the argument, we need to first understand the assumptions the argument makes.

[Premise 1] Language tells us something about living conditions.

[Premise 2] PIE didn't have a word for "sea". PIE did have words for "winter", "snow", and "wolf".

[Conclusion] PIE people lived in a cold place isolated from the sea.

Do you see how useless Premise 1 actually is? Of course language tells us something about living conditions. You don't need to say that because it's obvious.

Instead, what I need to know, in order for Premise 1 to hook up with Premise 2, is specifically what it is that language tells me about living conditions. Specifically, I need to know that if a language had a word for something, then the feature that word points to existed in the living conditions of the people who spoke that language. (Had the word "winter" which points to a cold season, so PIE people lived in a place with cold seasons. Had the word "snow" which points to snow, so PIE people lived in a cold place. Had the word "wolf" which points to wolf and wolves are awesome.)

I also need to know that if a language lacked a word for something, then the feature that missing word points to did not exist in the living conditions of the people who spoke that language. (Missing the word "sea" which points to sea, so PIE people lived in a place with no sea.)

Those are the huge universal assumptions about the evidentiary power of language that the argument makes. (B) denies those assumptions. It denies universality. It makes the premises less supportive of the conclusion.

(B) doesn't claim whether PIE falls into its group. I know you want to say "we have to assume that PIE is one of those languages in (B)" but you don't. You don't because you don't have to prove the conclusion wrong (and you're trying to do that). Your job is only to make the existing premises less supportive of the conclusion.

That's a distinction introduced way back in the original Core Curriculum lessons on how to weaken arguments. Do not attack the conclusion. Attack the support the premises lend to the conclusion. In other words, wreck the assumptions.

Darn it! I eliminated E in BR and went for the bait A! Covfefe

Well I didnt fall for the trap answers of D and E because those athletes are not yet aware of their cognitive abilities as the passage makes us know. For it to be right it has to be an answer choice that states that they are familiar or aware of their cognitive abilities and somehow counter the fact that they dont derive pleasure from only the cognitive ability and B does exactly that. Thoughts anyone?

For some reason, I dont know why I am tripping over this question and i frankly find it annoying! Either I need a break or CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP???

I reasoned it both ways. Either way there will be a threat to the owl population which weakens the argument.

Why On earth did I eliminate the BR choice of B and choose E????? Maybe its cos its "your-anus"!!!