there is a correlation between

more being crimes reported within 12 months & this rise being a problem

When weakening a causal argument you are giving alternate cause.

C picks up on that

P: Metaphor was unusual

C: Therefore G copied J

Weaken: What if G did not copy J? So using same metaphor mean one copied? What if G and J did not think this was independent?

E: confuses the issue. The fact that Grey was generally more creative doesn't answer whether Grey stole this particular unusual metaphor. (generally is weak) ... so what if G is generally more creative, he could create and invent 100000 work but there is still room of possibility he stole this particular work? inventing and creating does not prove anything. It's easy to say so what he is creative? he probably copied J this 1 instant.

Lets replace rice with water. Because I better understand the exaggeration of this argument

P: Less production on water CAUSES the price of water to increase.

P: smallest change on water production can CAUSE huge amount of water available

C: Therefore Government is to blame for controlling the madness of price increase?

The way I perceived this argument is ... the government is problematic due to XYZ reasons.

Weakening:

1. What if government is not to be blamed for this madness, and what if this is the government twistested way of solving? What if the government is not really problematic with water supply and demand?

C picks up on that

5/6 in 1 hour. Bro this passage was brutal

15. Main Point Question - check the first paragraph

16. Role Question - check the claim being made in the first sentence of the last paragraph

17. Overall structure Question- think about author attitude advocating new idea

18. Specific detail - Role Question - look at 2nd paragraph where the author is supporting why it was hard to do study

19. Weaken Question - this type dont always work but, keep in mind the secondary structure/example/evidence/proof of the argument the author makes and weaken it. To this question in specific look at last paragraph.

Q8. MP QUESTION... The MP of the passage before getting into the AC, we should already anticipate it. We can say the Point and emphasis of the passage was about RL art in parody/comedy and then how RL was different from standard Abstract Expressionism and the passage ends with nostalgic emotions.

(A) - "recreate ... of earlier abstract exp.." we know nothing of this. Theres no support ?

(B) - YES, even tho "simultaneously" threw me off a bit

(C) - "prevented" um what ? lol

(D) - "rebel ... of later abstract" no mismatching words. RL rebel was actually lightly spoken

(E) - "reconcile" what no ! STICK TO THE MP!!!

Q9. Authors Attitude Q, we can say Author is neutral, supportive, cool, nonchalant. Based off passage I would automatically eliminate overly strong words. There's no support for how much the Author liked RL.

(A) - "enthusiastic" - ya no

(B) "respect for youth & innocence" - this was rarely mentioned, we honestly dk ~

(C) "blatant rejection" - I mean RL was feeling eh about it, but we dk how author feels

between (D) & (E), honestly, (E) is way more factually supported.

Flaw Type:

1. Red herring

2. Opinion DOES NOT EQUATE fact.

The author is flaw in the reasoning of the conclusion. The author is tryna justify his opinions as mere facts. We can easily attack the assumption and say, what proof do you have for your claim? What if its medium?

some = 1%

Most = 50% - 100%

A ---> some 1% of Plant B took NB. Which also means 99% MOST DID NOT TAKE NB. This is eliminating bias sampling. This is subtly strengthening that this is a control group. Forced vs. voluntary group. B group had the volunteer option to take NB.

some = 1%

Most = 50 - 99%

C --> is tricky because of quantifier logic. If you're saying that 1% un-hunted species went extinct. What happened to 50-99% of the un-hunted species that survived? It's clearly not the hunting or the virus so what is it?

You can also see this Flaw type as:

self selecting sample is being generalized as a whole

The tested sample supplies (part) that field inspector selected are being violated (whole).

Flaw Type: Equivocation Flaw

CXT: VL does not reduce Criminal activity

P: In order to make V illegal ---> Transform IEO into crimes

C: Therefore, VL increase crime while failing to reduce it.

The author is falsely assuming that "Transforming crimes is "Increase crime". Which are 2 separate distinct things.

Flaw Type: Argument of analogy - False equivocation

BG: Copyright Law Protection on the WEB

P: Real Estate Ideas as an example/analogy ... "Real Estate Law on trespass encroachment "

C: Therefore, encroachment can extend to Cyber.

The author is falsely equivocating "real estate" with "cyber/web". Falsely assuming there are similarities.

BG: Old method is ehh

P: Cost/Benefit of a new method

C: Predicting this method will be met

Weak/Flaw: Fail to consider possibilities.

BG: Contrast Methods A & B

P: Compare Method A "trait" is better than B

C: Predicting A "likely to be more" profitable/favorable than B

Assumption of bias favoritism of METHOD A trait "TASTE" WILL CAUSE profit.

Assumption that TASTE is correlated with PROFIT/COST/GAIN/INCREASE etc

OH WOW this answer choice is basically saying ...

The prediction of "Recession Happening" DID NOT OCCUR.

Conclusion: It is a mistake to think Lack of Confidence + willingness to spend harms overall economy. IN OTHER WORDS ... lack of confidence + willingness to spend DOES NOT HARM over all economy .... IN OTHER WORDS There is no correlation between Lack of confidence + willingness to spend NO CORRELATION WITH overall economy.

Why Author why do you say this retarded statement .... WELL BECAUSE

people's confidence etc + money spending blah blah IS THEIR OWN ECONOMIC SITUATION...

Author is failing to consider that maybe THERE IS REALLY A CAUSAL PHENOMENA and maybe immediate individual economy + confidence + money spending DOES CORRELATE with overall economy. (ANSWER D IS A FANCY WAY OF STATING THIS CAUSAL FLAW)

Hey I still saw this as a MSS/Inference/Fill In type Q and just answered with process of elimination.

REMEMBER AUTOMATICALLY ELIMINATE WHAT IS OUT OF SCOPE AND IRRELEVANT.

B) Mature trees ... (stimulus says nothing about mature tree so what can we possibly infer)

C) Mature tree higher proportion ... ( again the stimulus never explicitly mention or implied mature trees.

D) will almost certainly? (way too strong WILL CERTAINLY? no way this was mentioned)

E) No complete ? (Its just getting stronger and more out of scope)

MY ADVICE WHEN DOING MSS/INFERENCE/FILL IN IS TO THINK SO LIMITED AND SO CONTAINED AND SO OBJECTIVE.

Premise: 2 Groups are being studied

Premise: Group A and Group B due to XYZ reasons

Conclusion: Therefore, N could have ....(I didn't even bother reading the rest because this super flawed)

First of all why are you trying to understand ANCIENT mechanic by studying that process thru MODERN STUDENT? TWO DIFFERENT TIME PERIOD. WHAT IS THE GUARANTEE THE CHILDREN ARE BEING CLOSELY ACCURATE TO ANCIENT TIMES?

So what just because 2 groups being studied in Modern Times can accurately give you some evidence on what happened thousands of years ago? Just because Group A and B showed no results YOU CAN CONCLUDE ANYTHING? You can conclude from your made up assumption ... oh since there's no diff between A and B you can say that N didn't use language? What if they did use language? What if the tools they used were from outer space and magically disappeared?

ANTICIPATION:

I need to see something that contradicts the argument reasoning. Since There's no different results from the study THEN maybe N used no language?

-What if N used language?

-What if the tools are different?

Flaw Type: Temporal Flaw - The argument assumes what is true in the past will continue to be true, or past odds influence future chances

Argument:

C: Skepticism

P: Hesitate to admit that their behavior ... (Lying)

I MADE A MISTAKE OF THINKING THIS LIKE A FLAW QUESTION... WE ARE MEANT TO DESCRIBE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE STIMULUS ABOVE.

There was a experimental study

Scientist made a conclusion

Author Rejected it

Author provide an alternate reasonings (Could be Liars)

Flaw: Causation

P: Speed limit reduction CAUSED Fatal rates on highway went down

C: Therefore, Speed limit reduction can CAUSE traffic fatal rate to go down.

Firstly, I see it as... What works for me will work for you. What worked on the highway will work on local streets. WHICH IS WRONG TO PRESUME THIS

Secondly ....whose to say this causation worked? whose to say speed drop cause safer roads. What if it was covid that year and no one was barely on the road.

Thirdly, I see ... The author error in assumption was the Link between Speed limit causation and death rate. He was wrong to assume this causation fallacy is [not abnormal = normal] DOUBLE NEGATED. Hes wrong to assume this causation IS NORMAL.

Flaw Assumption Question for "Causation"

1: Fails to consider alternate cause

2. Presuming this is the only cause

3. No Cause Same Effect

E: The author takes for granted that this causation fallacy is [not abnormal = normal]

Flaw: Think of don't judge a book by its cover... you can't just judge a whole community based off 1 person. And you can't just 1 person based off from a community.

1. Opinion DOES NOT MEAN Fact

2. Subjective DOES NOT MEAN Objective

3. Part/Whole

P: Degree of emotional impact varies person to person. (subjective/opinion/Parts of views)

C: Artist assessment on art can not be credence. (Fact/Whole)

Flaws:

1: Author is falsely assuming that these views are not liable to do any assessment.

2. Author fails to consider other reasonings.... maybe these artist know what they doing in assessing an art, maybe these artist have similar understanding in assessing art?

3. If your saying PARTS OF THESE VIEWS ARE NOT CREDITED AS A WHOLE, that's wrong.

Flaw:

1. Equivocation

2. Opinion does not mean fact

P: People are unhappy with how ineffective the president is.

P: Author defines: ineffective = compromise (he is doing his job)

C: Therefore, people expressing unhappiness means president is doing job

Okay few flaws we can spot.

1. People's definition of ineffective can be very different from the author. (Equivocation)

2. People's opinion/belief does not conclude Y. (Opinion does not mean Y)

Just because people are unhappy DOES NOT MEAN The president is doing his job.

1. The author is falsely assuming

1) peoples opinion on the president ONLY revolves around this 1 thing (compromise) and there NO OTHER REASON.

2) these people know what it means to be ineffective.

Question Type: Fail to Consider (We are looking for an answer choice that will contradict your argument:

P: X ray is harmful

C: Therefore, radiation absorbed is harmful

We need to anticipate or look for an answer choice that contradict the argument. How can you say EVIDENCE (X-ray in scenario #1) can guarantee an absorption of Radiation damage? you are falsely assuming that what is causal in 1 instance will be casual in another instant?

FLAW TYPE: CAUSAL FLAW

P: Strike LEAD (causal indicator word) steep fine

P: CAUSING major financial loss

C: Therefore, (i did not even bother to finish read the stimulus .. too cookie cutter obvious)

Answer could be

1. Fails to consider alternate cause

2. Assumes A and B are correlated

C is fail to consider alternate cause.