I don't see why A) doesn't strengthen here. The conclusion is that there is a causal link between declining populations and ozone depletion. The support is that ozone blocks one type of radiation (UV-B) that damages genes. A) says: 1. Ozone blocks more than one kind of radiation... let's call them U...

I see that the structure of B makes it a good form to strengthen the conclusion, but I didn't pick it because B says "[P and N] emitted simultaneously by a distant event will reach Earth at different times." How do we know whether they were emitted simultaneously? The stimulus doesn't say ...

I struggled with C because it seems like the harm to be prevented is directly related to the prohibited act, not indirectly as the answer suggests. Why it appears to be directly related: Anabolic steroids are prohibited. The harm to be prevented is health issues due to steroid use. Why it's in fact ...

Hi, I would greatly appreciate if you can elaborate the process involved in the assessment of answer choice E: "E) Again, the conclusion assumes too little, not too much. If every helmet with rubber has plastic, then ALL helmets with plastic have rubber, not MOST." I'm just not seeing how...

When I read this stimulus I saw a different principle than others in this thread see. The principle I saw is something like: Sometimes there are two skills to consider when picking someone for a task and sometimes it makes sense to choose greater proficiency in one skill at the expense of the other ...

I don't think it's ambiguous. Willet says: I heard the same arguments (Benson's) before - 5 and 10 years ago. => For this reason there is nothing new in this idea. Moreover, every time the proposal was rejected for good reasons. Therefore I oppose the proposal. So yeah, he heard the same argumen...

C says most consumers don't consult the instructions. I could make the instructions the best written instructions in the world, and it would not make it any easier for MOST consumers. I could also forget to include the instructions and wouldn't make any more difficult for MOST consumers. They simply...

The argument takes takes the invalid argument form:

A is correlated with B.
B is correlated with C.
Therefore A is correlated C.

Since the argument is invalid we cannot conclude A is correlated with C. The correct answer choice to this question catches that flaw.

How are B and E any different?

B:
1. TC -> ML
2. Not TC
Conclusion: Not ML

E:
1. SEC -> AMC logically equivalent to: Not AMC -> Not SEC
2. AMC
Conclusion: SEC

I think it helps on this question to take a step back and to understand the generic form of the argument. It's saying that: 1. factor A influences factor B. 2. factor B varies Conclusion: factor A also varies replace A with compounds in brain and B with symptoms This is not a good argument! C) attac...

I initially circled (B) on the test, then took (E). My rationale for going against (B) was that it says: 'if any antibiotic now on the market is used ...' to me, this left the door open to it being used in conjunction with another antibiotic, thus making it outside of the scope of the stimulus' 'no...

I didn't feel comfortable eliminating choices based on where it said correct or incorrect. I think the passage leaves that a bit open. Anyway, you can still get to the same answer. We know that these critics say art is about the present and everyday A) We know very little about what these critics be...

what if B said, "fails to consider whether people who rarely use sunscreen had more severe cases of skin cancer". Would it be a correct answer choice then? I think chose this one because I thought it was saying that. This question reminded me PT 69 S1 Q3 which also threw me in the wrong di...

Does the "any" in answer choice B mean any ONE anti-biotic used by itself? I don't think it means that. I think it leaves open the possibility that two anti-biotics are used at the same time. This can lead to a scenario where the stimulus is true but the statement in B in false. So X-Away ...