PTA.S4.Q3 and PTA.S4.Q5

emmorensemmorens Core Member
edited June 2021 in Logical Reasoning 1470 karma

Okay I had a lot of trouble with these two strengthening questions lol so to see that they are only 2/3 star difficulty is slightly concerning. I ended up getting them both right under timed and BR without understanding fully why they correct. It did throw me off during the section but I'm trying to build confidence in eliminating to get AC's right.

I'm going to include my thoughts on each AC as I'm trying to build a habit of articulating what each answer choice actually does when it interacts with the argument to build my reasoning skills (ie: strengthens, weakens, does nothing). I will include this in my rationale below and would appreciate if someone could take a once over and let me know 1) if the way I am interpreting an AC to interact with an argument is wrong (ie: if I think it does nothing but it actually strengthens) and also 2) if there is anything else you notice in my reasoning. I am really trying to hone in on reasoning skills so don't be shy to critique mine if there is something I am missing or assuming!

A) Neither strengthens nor weakens; so what if both F and M pit vipers have these sensors while also exhibiting aggressive and defensive behaviour? The hypothesis we are trying to supports that the sensors serve to assist in judging the SIZE and DISTANCE of predators.
B) Strengthens; okay so if pit vipers do not differ in their predatory behaviour from the way non-pit vipers behave (ie: they both act the same way towards prey) but they do differ markedly from non-pit vipers in their strategies of defence against predators; then this would strengthen the claim that the pits assist the viper. Ie: sort of like an experiment, take one with pits and one without pits and see how they act in terms of defending themselves from predators.
C) Neither strengthens nor weakens; this seems totally irrelevant, distinguishing pit vipers based on their pits and other chemical features in no way strengthens the hypothesis about how the pit vipers use pits primarily defend themselves in specific ways.
D) Neither strengthens nor weakens; okay but this still doesn't indicate how they use the pits and if the hypothesis is correct? How can anything supplementary help us when aren't sure about the hypothesis.
E) Neither strengthens nor weakens; at first glance I thought that since this indicates they do have predators it could help, but it's just about another defence mechanism and it still doesn't strengthen, in any way, the hypothesis that the infrared sensors serve a specific purpose (which is to judge the size and distance of predators).

I thought this one was a little tricky because if you don't stay clear on what the hypothesis is, it's a little easy to get lost.

A) Strengthens; Okay so if official persecutions were preceded by propaganda campaigns in order to vilify the groups being persecuted - this seems to indicate that they were not taken on reluctantly and that it was not their only goal to soothe popular unrest? Because why would they have this propaganda with a distinct purpose if otherwise?

B) Does nothing; The opposing view is geared towards being reluctantly persecuted AND a single purpose of persecution for various minority groups, this seems to miss the point there in terms of the direction for the purpose of persecution and how it reluctantly/not it was carried out. I think it is trying to dispute the fact that various groups were persecuted by telling us that 'they were protected', but either way I don't know anything about protection of official institutions and it doesnt seem fair to assume that because they 'often' existed under direct protection that they couldn't still be persecuted - how strong was this protection? did it stop them from physical harm?

C) Does nothing but if anything weakens (?); okay so this says that SOME groups of people accused of witch craft were victims of mob violence (indicating the hostility) and that they were also occasionally officially persecuted (this seems to cover the soothing popular unrest). But either way I don't know how strong SOME is in terms of this group in order to strengthen the opposing claim, the conclusion is about 'various minority groups' not some or one. Either way, it definitely does not strengthen the argument that the scholar's belief is questionable, I just wanted to analyze what it was doing in terms of the whole stimulus.

D) Does nothing; this seems irrelevant, many leaders didn't authorize spread of information that misrepresented religious practices? So what? How does that tell us anything about why the first belief is questionable.

E) Does nothing; this is about convicted felons being excluded and that being a form of persecution. I don't know what kind of society this is but assuming that convicted felons count as a minority group, the conclusion we are trying to dispute is about VARIOUS minority groups, not solely being persecuted, but how the persecutions were taken on reluctantly and with only one goal in mind.

Thank you for anyone who took the time to read my analysis and I hope there are some valuable points in there! Please don't hesitate to correct me on anything if you see any errors.

Sign In or Register to comment.