Great explanations so far, everyone. I just want to clarify something about (D): it doesn't actually apply to the defendant. Nowhere is the defendant saying that he is "ignorant of the difference between the two codes". Instead, the defendant is saying that he is "ignorant whether na...

A is wrong because it neglects to address the far-reaching legacy of TM. The author's opinion is best demonstrated in line 9-10 ("strategic and methodological legacy to the field of public interest law."). A did not address TM's legacy for litigation in the field of "public interest l...

D states that the first public interest law firms were established because of TM's innovations. We only know that the number of public interest firms grew since TM's time at NAACP, but we don't know anything about the FIRST public interest law firms. That is why D is not correct.

The question asks us to infer what the author's view on Marshall's test case strategy is. So it's important for us to keep in mind the general attitude of the author in the passage. The lines that suggest the author's attitude are 9-10 ("strategic and methodological legacy") and 14-15 (&qu...

When an author presents a CURIOUS FACT and then concludes a CAUSAL INTERPRETATION of that curious fact, we always ask the same two skeptical questions: 1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain that [curious fact]? 2. How PLAUSIBLE is the [author’s interpretation]? Here that means we’re either looking ...

Wouldn't B have a premise number mismatch? There are 3 premises in the original argument: 1. A spy fails by being caught 2. It is normally only through being caught that spies reveal their methods. 3. The successful spy is never caught There are only 2 premises here: 1. People who are aware of their...

Here's how I eliminated answer choices and narrowed down to (E): (A): Tempting, but it wouldn't lend support to why the worker chose to work on the second project instead of the first one. The worker could think––well if I should focus only on one project at a time I should focus on the first projec...

Question Type: Main Idea Answer expected in lines/paragraph: Lines 7-10 first appear as the thesis (right where we most often see the main point sentence -- end of the 1st paragraph, connected to a "but, yet, however, recently") As we read more of the passage, we learn that historians wan...

I think this is a case where anti-conclusion really comes in handy. The conclusion here is that you should never acquire expensive new tastes. (the modifier "never" makes it sound pretty extreme, huh?) The premise here is that acquiring expensive tastes (1) drains your purse and (2) may gi...

What I do when I see two negative-sounding verbs such as the ones (reject...cease to...) in the conclusion is––I take them out. Here's the conclusion : If we knew a lot about the events leading up to any action ( K ), we would regard that action as freely performed ( FP ). Premise : We are justified...

This is my first post so I hope I don't mess up. I think the flaw of the question could be described as the following: average (stated in the premise) ≠ most (stated in the conclusion) . Consider this: one person in the study saved $1,000,000 by switching to Popelka, while the rest saved $10 for the...

The stimulus states that "Venus must expel excess heat the core generates." With this in mind, any answer choice that does not explicitly discuss the methods of expelling excess heat can be eliminated.

B is the correct answer.

Question Type: Match the Reasoning Stimulus Breakdown: Conclusion : Our ancestors were at least partially altruistic. Evidence : Humankind couldn't have survived as it has if ancestors hadn't been motivated by sacrificing themselves for the survival of their kin. This type of sacrificing is a form ...

I had a tough time identifying C as the correct flaw. I thought William was using a more extreme analogy to prove Anna was incorrect so I choose A for the answer. I have two problems for this answer choice C. One is that I don't see how William asserts that Pliny's writings are 'incorrect' and I ju...

I chose C and here's what I did for the elimination process: Answer choices A, B, D, E all suggested possible factors that might contribute to the result: (A) Better nutrition in large hospitals (B) More stress in large hospitals (D) Higher turnover rate of patients in large hospitals (E) Less time ...

I went for answer choice D in the beginning. Now that I have thought about it, I think it is wrong for the following reason: According to Elaine, the museum should always go for the best example. There is no mention of budget in Elaine's argument. According to the answer choice, there are more chara...

The assumption: If the impact of the asteroid strike is not worldwide and if other craters larger than the one we have here did not cause extinction, the strike that engendered crater C is probably not responsible for most of the extinctions. We want to find an answer choice that helps us prove that...

Question Type: Match the Reasoning Here's how I solved this: The argument is laid out in a pretty simple, straightforward order: premise––premise––conclusion. Premise 1: 1000 peanuts from lot A and 1000 from lot B; 50 of the peanuts from lot A are found to be infected with Asp. Premise 2: Two hundre...

The argument goes in the following order: opposing point –– conclusion ––premise The conclusion is that the criticism that the texts are repeated well beyond what is needed for literal understanding can be refuted. The premise is that the repetitions serve a vital function. Let's work wrong-to-right...

I think the key to eliminating (A) is that the preference stated in paragraph 1––"We prefer some sort of coherence, a principle that connects the various SOUNDS." White noise is only one sound; it fails to demonstrate a sense of coherence because there's no other sounds.