If you take out the conclusion, the question becomes an RRE.
From that, you have "5% were expected to be defective, but 20% turned out to be"
"WHY?"
bc "field inspectors only chose those items which they suspected to be defective"
Then to convert it to a flaw, you re-introduce the conclusion and say the author overlooked the resolving fact.
Hope this helps, fwiw i chose (B)
This one took me a second. In talking about flagellums, the author makes a claim about swimming in the premises and then concludes something about survival advantage. There is somewhat of a "hole" or gap in that. (B) is the only one that links those two ideas to make sense of what the author is saying
kinda dumb but I missed this bc i didn't know what "I.e" stood for properly. I always thought it indicated an example and thus read the last sentence as " Any social philosophy that countenances (permits) choas, for example anarchy,"instead of "Any social philosophy that countenances chaos, in other words anarchy"
Reading it like this completely clears that there is an illicit term shift. I spent so long reading "ie" as "for example" that I was so confused on how to proceed on the question since no other AC but (A) makes sense, but I wasn't comfortable with (A) bc I did not make the connection that the term had in fact shifted. I thought it was moreso making an assumption that absence of govt = chaos.
@ thanks! I recently had to switch to safari while my laptop is in the shop, this makes more sense. thank you!
Hello, is there a way to remove the option of closed captioning automatically appearing when you start a video? I know you can downgrade the video player's functionality, but I like to use most of the functions its just that the closed captioning feature always needs to be manually turned off for every video explanation. IS there anyway to remove this "auto-on" feature for CC. #help
lmao could not figure out why this was (e) for the longest time if the answer wasn't gonna be (C).
(a), (B) imo were easily eliminated
i picked (C) both on timed and review and now see it is wrong cus it is saying the ONLY way to avoid being threatened is to spread out... this is not supported at all. We know that if you are isolated then you are threatened, but we do not know what happens if you are not threatened. Like thru the contrapositive it is clear you are not isolated, but then what are you?
(E) is straight up a beautiful answer choice that is so good and so subtle. The term change between insects and ants got blurry for me so I didn't even notice it was talking about insects in general being from Arctic Circle and TDF. I thought it was talking about ants being from both which is why I could not shake (D) away. Now I can clearly see that the author concluded no species of ANT is threatened on the basis that INSECTS can survive many temps. That's not a very good conclusion and has no support. What if 99% of all insects could survive and spread everywhere? Ants could still be in that 1% that doesn't
almost fell for (D).....thank god for this v2 curriculum
Kinda crazy to come back and do the Core Curriculum after finishing it and going through roughly 25 PTs.
More specifically, this question is a really good question to flag to build a deeper and more nuanced look at the LR section in general. Especially the discussion that JY has around the 2:37 mark in the video.
After going through all the lessons, the discussion he has on converting (B) into a necessary assumption AC or a weakening AC really foreshadows how all stimuli and ACs can be changed for different question stems and that the true way to master LR is to understand the damn passage. In fact, I got all of the questions right in this problem set simply by taking the time to understand what the author is trying to tell me rather than using context indicators and the like. I think it is important to continually go back to the "what is an argument" lesson and realize that the aim of LR questions, most of the time, is to persuade you of something with a really bad argument.
WOW! I totally assumed the implied hypothesis that the foods w BC were just that much better than the supplements in providing BC. I totally did not see (E) coming and denying that implicit hypothesis while also resolving the discrepancy. Great question, great answer. tricky tricky
@ had to scroll too far to finally see this. Yeat, thug, carti and Sosa are carrying me to a 180 edit: and ofc Future
(D) is also wrong b/c the author in the stim is saying that we cannot let this spread at all. Its not even going toward the conditional argument here. Its simply providing us with the possibility that the sufficient does not have to trigger to conclude the necessary. Well if the sufficient doesn't have to trigger the necessary in the conclusion and (D) is saying they overlook that the sufficient doesnt have to trigger the necessary, thats counter factual and false. idk if that made sense, but for (D) i basically assumed "adopt" meant "spread" but with a some instead of all statement. This relates back to how JY did it in the video but felt more intuitive. I then saw that I was making this assumption, realized the argument is too, and chose B
(A) is wrong b/c when negated it becomes:
"someone wants their estate to go to a rando"
-This does not address the conclusion. Namely, if you wanted your will to go to a rando it kinda stands to reason that you would write that into your will. You dont haaaave to, but you can.
(D) is right b/c when negated it becomes:
"people are generally indifferent about how their estate is distributed"
-Well if they are indifferent then why tf are we even drafting a will?
While (A)'s negation leaves the possibility of the conclusion still having force, (D) is completely necessary to draw the conclusion.
Think about it like a logic game. (A) is in the sufficient, when negated the rule falls away but, and crucially, the necessary condition is intact. However, with (D), because it is a necessary condition, if it is negated then the conclusion is also negated.
hard asf question, but finally getting it. I like to stay as close to the text as possible on harder questions to make sure I am on track and not making any assumptions, so this is how I came to some semblance of understanding:
First step is to identify the conclusions in each argument and see the bigger picture, both J and L are proposing solutions to the dilemma of having to research snow and it melting away and therefore, their solutions are their conclusions. Their entire argument is going to be supporting their solutions.
J→Conduct in Jan/Feb because funding
L→Conduct later because safety
Here, it is clear to see where they disagree. They not only disagree on when it should be conducted, but also WHY it should be conducted in that timeframe.
The first point of disagreement is too obvious, and the second is extremely subtle, which makes this question hard.
If this is still unclear and you would like to see another way:
Think of the stimulus in the most abstract way. Without the snow, without the months, what are J and L talking about? Minimizing risk.
Textual Support
J says, "We risk sending researchers when they will be unable to carry out the research successfully."
L says, "by going later, researchers run less risk of suffering dangerous exposure to the cold."
Using this framework, we can see that the two authors identify risks in two different ways and draw their conclusions (solutions) on the basis of their own risk-reward analysis. Therefore, the point they disagree on is which risk weighs more, since if both agreed which did or they weighed the same, there would be no disagreement.
I got this right during an untimed drill but it took forever. I was down to A,B and C as viable options. I couldn't discern which was better so I stopped, paused, and anchored myself to the stimulus and Qstem. As a Necessary Assumption, we are supposed to fill a gap in the argument. I went line-by-line connecting each sentence until I found the gap. The stim said that bacteria causes cleaning products to degrade and that these products are in the landfill. Therefore, the landfill is dangerous. Aha! Are there even any bacteria in the landfill? That was never said. this is the necessary assumption for the argument to work.
Something that I've been doing for these lessons is creating a drill in a separate tab with the question and doing it before watching the video lesson. I find this helps me track errors in my own reasoning and compare to JYs. Basically making each lesson a "you try" helps a lot
great question that demonstrates using the ACs to guide you
#feedback#help
I did this question like this:
Domain: West Calverton
ps ‑m→ EB ‑m→ TF
PsTFEB → SG
SG (IndepOwned)
----------------------------
(PsTFEB) (IndepOwned)
is this wrong or just another way of doing it? I didn't make being independently owned a condition, rather I left it as a type/example of pet store. I guess this would be considered kicking it up to the domain but not sure.
A modern example of (B) is:
A large portion of the NBA watching population believe that the Denver Nuggets will win the 2023 NBA Finals based off regular season play between the two teams (easy analysis). However, to convince heat fans and jimmy butler this would require actually winning all the games (much harder).
heat in 6
This question was so hard for me to understand even months into prepping, but after diligently reading comments and going over JY's explanation I finally understand it.
In easy to digest p->c format
Short term effect of law can be easily seen and are painful.
Long term is obscure until people understand
Laws need a period immunity
Working backwards from the conclusion, we ask ourselves, "why do laws need immunity"
According to the argument, the laws need immunity in order to be retained.
Why?
Because the short term consequences of the law can be painful, while the long term consequences can be obscure.
Using common sense to guide intuition, the question becomes "Why are the laws even being retained if the short term consequences are negative and the long term consequences are obscure?"
Because
the long term consequences of a Law are be given more weight. Therefore, the retention of the law primarily depends on its long term consequences more than its short term consequences.
(B) directly says this
So here the media critics are essentially saying that Negative Reports →cause people to view the state of the economy pessimistically→ which in turn leads to harming the economy→ by pushing down spending. The Economist disagrees by saying that the spending trends instead correlate much better with an Individual's view of their own economic situation.
What we are trying to do here is identify the flaw made by the economist, namely the fact that they ignore the possibility that these negative reports could cause negative views on the economy which then further cause negative views regarding their own individualized economic situations.
Answer choice (a): this answer choice is wrong because it is saying that an individual's own economic situation affects how they perceive these reports. This is wrong because
1. it does not address what kind of affect this has, is it positive, negative, neutral?
2. It also reverses the effect mentioned by the media critics but does not address the flaw in the Economist's argument. In other words, it is saying that the individual situation CAN affect how one reads the news.....ok? How does that affect the relationship between negative news reports and spending? It doesn't.
I didn't like the language of (D) considering it used "people who generally have little confidence in overall economy generally have a pessimistic view..." Under timed conditions it felt that this was making two errors to me. The first being that it introduced a class of people not talked about yet (people who have little confidence in the economy) and secondly, it did not seem to address the "gap" between confidence in overall economy, negative news reports, and views on personal situation. I can now see that this answer choice is correct because it clearly address both the Media Critic and Economist's arguments by pointing out that Negative Media Reports could in fact have the effect of depressing views on the overall economy which then is likely to influence views on individual economic situation. This is the only answer choice that remotely addresses the connection between negativity, news reports, individual economics and the economy in general.
I got this right after a long time of staring at it, the key to me was not the "close orbit" element in the conditional as JY brought up, but rather my conditional was [Maintain orbit→BHS]
The context tells us that ring of gas has been observed in a stable orbit.
So it just goes: [Maintain Orbit → BHS]
[MO] from the context that we know the orbit has been stable
----------------------------------
BHS
The word "paradoxically" in Q7 really screwed me up, since it seemed like a paradox to have an authentic version that can portray something in a more inauthentic light like the Passage says. I realize now that yes there is a paradox, but I was misreading where that paradox is. The paradox is between spending all this effort in creating a directors cut, only for it to not show ("exhibit") the DC in an authentic way (with other programs). That's what (D) picks up on.
I got this one right in the most random way.
In the stimulus, I assigned X Y Z for each part of the argument. Usually X, then Y. Y only when Z. Therefore, usually Z.
I assigned X, Y and Z as variables for each part of the ACs. "read" = X, "found disturbing" = Y, "vivid imagination"for Z.
(D) was the only one that matched my original skeleton. Usually (most) X, then Y. Y only when Z. Therefore, usually (most) Z
Lol first one I missed on this section of 3. It really just boils down to the stimulus saying "caffeine is primarily responsible" (A) turns that around by saying no, that's not the primary reason. The primary reason why CA deficiency, and therefore broken bones, happens with soda drinkers is bc they are not consuming a proportionate amount of milk. Beautiful question, lots to learn from.
pm me