I'd really appreciate someone providing additional clarification for this question. I was unable to answer it correctly because I evidently paid too much attention to "universal acceptance of" in the first sentence. I firmly understand the conditional chain and how the pieces must interact...

The conclusion is trying to prove that "If everyone accepts (universal acceptance) the idea that people are just natural objects, then we'll ultimately get to a decline in morality." I think your struggle is in thinking that (B) needs to get us to "Universal Acceptance". But it ...

Hi there, I have a quick question regarding the difference between step 2 of the PEAR process, "evaluate," and step 4 of the PEAR process, "reassess." In MLSAT's RC book, I see that a large component of "evaluating" is determining whether what you read is support for on...

I really think of PEAR as two steps: - Pause & Evaluate - Anticipate (& Reassess, if necessary) Pausing to evaluate is why some people choose to take notes (I don't, but that's because I'm mentally pausing to make mental notes). After having read a very important sentence, we are well serve...

Can an expert please explain to me how (A) does not attack Sahira's premise, "artists of great potential would have to produce work that would gain widespread popular acclaim, instead of their best work." Aren't we supposed to take Sahira's claim at face value -- that works of popular accl...

Hoping an expert can help me out here. I still don't see why (A) is required. It is clearly required if the conclusion regards landfills that were converted into public parks in the past, but how do we know this to be true? It could be that in the past, there were no bacteria in such landfills, but ...

Correct, R is definitely rejecting a component of what S's premise was. But the advice you're remembering about "Don't attack a premise" is referring to the Assumption Family, where our job is to evaluate someone's argument. (Assumption Family = Flaw, Strengthen, Weaken, Necessary Assumpt...

.

Can an expert please explain why (D) is necessary to the argument? First, let's negate it and see if that harms the argument (I maintain that the negated form does not harm the argument). Negated form: "The typical doughnut eater adds to doughnuts any substances that increase the total caloric ...

ohthatpatrick Wrote:Correct Answer:
D


#officialexplanation

Patrick, thanks so much for the helpful explanation. However, your post erroneously states that the correct answer is D, even though you explained why (C) is correct.

Question Type: Match the Reasoning Stimulus Breakdown: Conclusion : The characters will not be developed in a more realistic manner. Evidence : If the writers made the characters more realistic, the viewership for the show would shrink, and the writers will choose to maximize their audience. Answer...

Can an expert please provide an explanation for this question? It's not clicking for me and I still can't identify the core of the argument properly. I originally thought the conclusion was "these two issues are related..."

Thank you in advance!

Can an expert please provide an explanation for this question? It's not clicking for me and I still can't identify the core of the argument properly. I originally thought the conclusion was "these two issues are related..." Thank you in advance! Patrick, are you able to help with this que...

Accepting the results of a study is not what we mean by "accept a claim for the sake of argument". We mean saying something like, "Is Lebron the best basketball player ever? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Lebron is the best ACTIVE player . That still doesn't mean he's the ...

Question Type: Inference (most supported) Stimulus Breakdown: Contrast/causality . Amusia prevented people from hearing different pitches of notes but allowed them to hear different time sequences of notes. Answer Anticipation: We're looking for some safe way to straddle the idea that volunteers wi...

(to Andrew's question .... yes, connecting the last two ideas with "for" vs. "and" would have conveyed that claim 2 supported claim 1. Connecting two ideas with "and" means that claim 1 + claim 2 are supporting some other idea together. In this case, claim 1 was the au...