This one is stupid i'm sorry. How is A correct?! "a physics teacher ACCEPTS the data" THE AUTHOR LITERALLY REJECTS THE DATA WHEN THEY SAY "specific effects of Brevetoxin are unknown" along with rejecting the researchers data on the atlantic coast. They reject the data AND the conclusion. They reject the conclusion BECAUSE of the data being wrong. what a stupid answer

im ngl i was super happy with answer choice A. I was thinking that answer choice A weakens the argument that "violent crime is becoming a serious problem" by synthesizing that crime IN GENERAL is increasing, so how is specifically VIOLENT CRIME a serious problem? I thought i was so smart and totally picked out the trick question, but I guess i overthought it

Another reason why I chose B is because it directly relates to the conclusion; the charge is unfair. So what is necessary to believe that the critics opinions are unfair, well because a novel that poetically condenses a major emotional crisis does not have to be indifferent how the critics believe. I feel like it just says the critics opinion doesn't matter which is completely a necessary assumption to believe that the critics charge is unfair. This is prolly terrible reasoning but hey im good

I am confused about JY's explanation here. How can you just make the "comp tob" Necessary assumption into a sufficient one from the next premise? That makes no sense to me. In my reasoning, I heard the "in addition" and was lost because wdym "in addition," you can't add a necessary condition into a sufficient one just randomly. So for me it was reasonable grounds... --> Justified --> business computer access. So how did Jy just make it Business comp + reasonable grounds --> Justified?!!?

@rayandarwiche15393 wait but it's not like answer choice B relates to the analogy either. Or is it that there are 2 separate analogies going on in this stim, the one between the motorist, and the one between the other cities?

I don't understand the relevance of the size of a city and its economic investments. But for answer choice D, I feel that's easily the better answer. Answer choice D relates to the first premise, as it states that advisers demand higher salaries, which affects the "payoff" because it seems the cost outweighs the benefit. And regarding weakening the argument; the price of the advisers that the city council was "praised" for getting seems to be more than the city is willing to spend, which affects the payoffs and regarding if the city council should be praised, I mean you just overspent basically

Though I chose answer choice C, I feel like it isn't simply "stated" in the passage as the explanation says. They don't change in body size when they become carnivores, but in response to eating a shrimp (which I wouldn't say makes them "become carnivores"), they become larger and carnivorous. So the wording is very weird; it's not a causal relationship; they happen at the same time.

what does the passage have to say about transferring folktales to contemporary Nigerian life? I don't think it does. I understand what it says but the "contemporary Irish life" in answer choice D is just very confusing to me. I don't think its that supported

@annette15lee452 wait yeah but wouldn't that still strengthen the hypothesis? The stim states that hotel and resturant revenues have increased, and B is complacent with that. It agrees that hotels and resturants revs would increase while attraction revs stay the same because the passes have been shared.

@wgresh I feel like I must be misunderstanding what A is saying, but i genuinely don't see any other way its interpreted

how is A incorrect.

Stim: Computers do a thing, humans also do a thing, therefore humans are a type of computer.

A: Animals do a thing, humans do a similar thing, so humans are animals.

Am i reading it incorrectly?

@DavidCutie its hard to push back into the stim when the stim doesn't make sense at all. I couldn't even come to the conclusion that the stim was saying that the electric current was useful for detecting earthquakes. Maybe if the stim said "the prediction method aids in deciding when to evacuate various towns by evaluating electric currents in the Earth's crust," but we know nothing about anything mentioned in the stim.

The explanation for why B is correct is so stupid. How can you say that for answer A that its wrong because the stimulus is purely limited to Fax machines yet answer choice B has an even wider generalization when saying "some industries"

I think I understand this question (haven't watched his explanation vid yet), and I want to see if when I write it down, it makes sense. So I knew the conclusion was mentioned in the first sentence; now I'm looking for something to support that conclusion: that our brain's immune cells' activity causes deterioration of cognitive faculties. Well, the very next sentence explains a way in which the deterioration (which is caused by our immune cells) can be "slowed down." So basically telling us that our immune cell activity can be reduced by Ace acid.

SOOO, this very distinction was mentioned in answer choice B, and I acted as if it were true. Therefore, because ace acid reduces the production of immune cells, this proves that the deterioration of the brain is in fact caused by our own immune cells. This is just because of the connection between the stim and the answer choice, like it confirmed the support of the conclusion yk. this was really hard to read, I apologize

E is such a worse answer than D. D directly compares those who share the same "unhealthy" life as the ones who live to more than 100. Since they live the same way, and the only difference is that one lives longer, than that must mean that that person has the genetic advantage to live longer, which supports the argument.

E on the other hand assumes more than anything, i'm seriously confused. Lets say I live to more than 100 and I have a unhealthy lifestyle. My sister also lives to 100, oh so we must be genetically disposed to live long. HELL NOO. In that answer we are assuming that my sister is having the same unhealthy lifestyle as me, thats the only case that would confirm our genetic advantages.

@wgresh OHHHH okay so public libraries and bookstores are different LOL!! Okay so because they don't have the book in a public library, they go to a bookstore to buy it, which is why bookstore sales are up, I understand now.

I really don't understand A at all. I chose it as my answer because I assumed what most assumed. But maybe I just don't understand how public libraries work? how is purchasing fewer popular novels indicative to libraries increasing in sales. wouldn't it mean the opposite? Why would anyone purchase anything at that library if they don't have the popular book they are looking for? I must be misunderstanding something

i refuse to believe C is the right answer. I think the statement is obviously true but the Stim literally tells us that there are significant contributions to science by pro scientists, WHO ARE MOTIVATED BY ECONOMIC NECESSITY, NOT LOVE OF DISCOVERY.

i feel like inference questions(or maybe just this specific one) is more similar to a main conclusion question. The question is asking what can be inferred from the authors statements, just like a MC question; "whats the main point of the authors statement." I mean we are literally noting the main conclusion for our answer to this question. Idk if it will be like this for other questions so maybe I shouldn't use this methodology in the future but it seems to me that answer choice D is just a summary of the parents main point

If the plants carried a virus, then Wally's plants couldn't be a large nursery because most large nurseries sell plants that are guaranteed to be disease-free. SOOOO, does this just mean Wally's plants is apart of the few large nurseries that don't guarantee disease-free plants? "most" doesn't mean "all" after all. Am i understanding this correctly?

I honestly need to take my time more, but thats the problem. I DONT HAVE TIME😀

I am slightly curious about the recent conditional arguments we are coming across. In the past MC, MSS, and PAI questions we have not used Lawgic that much. Is this because it wasn't needed? Are we to mostly look to translate things into lawgic for MBT type questions?

@ashkankhorasani2010822 I understand the "unlike" explaining that Large frogs can, in fact, live in arid areas. But where does it state large frogs can live in wet areas?

@neealio where does it state that Large frogs can also live in a wet climate? is it in the beginning where it says adult frogs are vulnerable to dehydration?

I didn't like how in the video it mentioned useing the contrapositive to help describe an argument but then in the very first practice question, it provided a direct example of how using the contrapositive STILL doesn't help you make sense of the argument