This question stem is asking us to find an argument, there are five arguments in answer choices, they're asking us to find the argument, the one argument here, that has a similar pattern of flawed reasoning to the argument that we're given in the stimulus.

So we call this a parallel flaw method of reasoning question. These questions are, they're daunting because just look at how many words are on the page, but they tend to be not very difficult questions.

But, you know, it's a trade-off. It's time-consuming initially because you're just really trying to get into it, but once you get better and better at this, you can eliminate answer choices very, very quickly.

So this type of question is actually, logically, they're easier. You know, the answer choices aren't as confusing.

Why should we accept, there's a proposal, let's get rid of the old train station. Accept it. Why?

Because a local historical society, which vehemently opposed this, okay, so people who oppose it say, no, no, no, let's preserve it.

You know, they're the historical society. Because the historical society who wants to preserve the station is dominated by people who have no commitment to long-term economic well-being.

What does that have to do with anything? Okay, and preserving old buildings creates an impediment to new development, which is critical to economic health.

Okay, but is that, like, is this building, I can accept that generally maybe preserving old buildings is an impediment to this, blah, blah, blah,

but is this one, does preserving this one create an impediment to economic, to new development? I don't even know.

Besides, like, the fact that they oppose it have nothing to do with this. This is a terrible, terrible argument.

If you're going to make an argument to the conclusion that you should accept a proposal to demolish a train station, you need to say why positively that is a good thing to do.

Not just, like, point to some people who oppose it and then say why they, you know, and then start attacking them. That has nothing, you're trying to support this conclusion.

Right, see, this is like, it's the conclusion is here and then there are some other people who oppose, who oppose this.

And then you can't just, like, attack them. Attacking them all day long won't get you anywhere as far as you need to build a positive support for this conclusion.

Just attacking other people doesn't get you anywhere.

Alright, so let's find that similar structure in our answer choices. A says our country should attempt to safeguard works of art deemed to possess national significance.

Right, see, I'm looking for something that, oh, you know, we should attempt to safeguard despite these other people who say don't safeguard, but then start attacking those other people.

But none of that stuff exists, so that's why A doesn't match.

And then now I need to identify people who sort of take the opposite view and then attack them for even when it's lost, damaged, blah, blah, blah.

But again, they don't do that.

C says you should have your hair cut no more than once a month, at most once a month.

And then I need to find people who oppose that and then attack them.

After all, beauticians suggest to have their hair cut twice a month. There you go.

That they, here are the people, beauticians.

They are opposing this and now I need to attack them, and I do.

They do this as a way of generating more business for themselves.

So that's why, but you see, that doesn't, yeah, okay, but maybe it's also because it's good for you.

Maybe you'll look better if you have your hair cut twice a month.

Or I shouldn't have crossed this out.

I crossed out because it's a terrible argument, it's terrible reasoning, but it's the same type of terrible reasoning that our stimulus has.

So we should support the plan to halt or rather postpone construction.

Now I need to find someone who really, really wants to start construction right now and then attack them.

Many residents' neighborhood that would be affected are fervently opposed to construction.

But you see, but they're on our side.

They like that we postpone, so this doesn't work.

But you see, D is of course very, very tricky because it does introduce both two parties at least.

Okay, and then someone else who opposes this, once you borrow a few dollars, interest, longer repay, blah, blah, blah.

None of this stuff matters.

So that's really how quick it is to get rid of all the wrong arguments here.

Now a more fruitful exercise that you could do is actually to go into each of these arguments and then see if you can fix it up.

We sort of kind of did that a little bit to see if you can fix it up so that it does match the stimulus.

That's a very, very helpful exercise to do.