I believe (C) is OOS because only wine is talked about in the stimulus and does not bring in any other alcoholic beverages.

Thanks sumukh09, it's all clear now. I don't know why I had such a hard time grasping this problem. :S

During my timed PT I had no clue what the stimulus was getting to (actually I'm still not sure if I get it now), but I knew the author was rebutting the philosophers, so I only focused on after "But the happiness..." to get to (C). I assumed that the author's POV would be concentrated in h...

I am so very confused about this question. I got the correct answer for this one but at the same, I'm not sure if my thought process was entirely correct. Could someone please check if I'm on the right track? I thought the author was addressing the shift in scope argued by the critics. Because havin...

rosemerrychill, I don't think you are contradicting the premise. That particular premise states "3m year-old fossils of a kind previously found only in ocean-floor sediments..." You would contradicting the premise if you said "No, the fossil was previously discovered in places other t...

In a causal reasoning there are several ways in which you can weaken the causal argument 1. Cause but no effect 2. Effect but no cause 3. Reversed relationship (Usually the answer when premise states correlation) 4. 3rd variable that is the cause of both stated cause&effect 5. The whole experime...

I like using highlighter in RC, as it really helps me refer back to key terms, viewpoints and etc. But, I've been fiddling with the idea of using highlighter in LR too. Is this recommended? The only time I highlight in LR is when I want to clearly differentiate conclusion while reviewing. I just wan...

I'm terrible at this type, so I'm going to attempt to dissect this question on here to help myself and possibly others. Please let me know if something seems off. The core of the argument hinges on a relationship in which, the author concludes that high-salts diets are linked to high blood pressure ...

Hey all, quick question.

Would the pattern of reasoning be correct if "any" in the beginning of the conclusion is substituted with "some"?

So it would look like.....this?
A --> B
A --> C

Some C --> B

Thanks in advance!

(E) is tempting, as it suggests there's a different causal connection, but there could be multiple ones at the same time (i.e. just because obesity causes depression doesn't mean it cannot also cause hair loss). Noah, I had a different reason for being tempted by (E) making it attractive as a weake...

For this question the answer can be very vague and weak. Yes the stimulus is about numbers and percentages but that doesn't mean you can forego other attributes such as language scope and etc. When I was solving this problem one thing I noticed was that the conclusion was WAY to strong for the given...

Choice B is wrong because the survey is correct to be representative of people who are eligible to vote. The survey would misrepresent the voting population if it asked infants and young teens who they planned to vote for, because they simply can't vote. Similarly, if the goal of the survey is to fi...

I believe you can quickly get through this one just by looking at the conclusions of each answers. Conclusion: There is no increased health risk....+ New element a) "there is no increased health risk..." + New element (nuclear) Perfect! b) More useful? No such relative comparison in the st...

I had a different approach to this question. Upon the first read-through, all answers seemed to be......answers :? So I ended up picking out a difference between the correct and the wrong answers. Author said there's a discrepancy between A(national phenomenon) and B(unusual circumstance in a partic...

I thought i would share how i got through this problem quickly. Please feel free to critique! I am myself wondering whether this is a reliable method. First when I saw the denseness of the passage I quickly read skimmed until I came across the keyword However. From here I realized that RATIONAL must...

hey js_martin01, I don't think we are combining two "most" statements here. 1st sentence says: Most opera singers WHO add demanding roles @ young age lose their voices early I saw that as a general fact, instead of a conditional. 4th sentence says: Most young singers -> strain their voc...

Although the last post was from a year ago, I will try to explain for others and myself. All the wrong answers defended the argument by bolstering the conclusion that it was due to the ineffectiveness of the mixture, not some alternate causes/events/effects that prevented people from using it. a) Bo...

If there are to causes to an effect. Strengthening one of them is regardless a strengthener. Just like you said, we don't know the situation with the other cause (which is overweight), assuming that overweight "could" do something would be overstepping into whole new boundary of assumptions.

I apologize if this topic has been discussed before.

I've seen some incorrect answers titled as OOS and some other Irrelevant.

I see the two as the same. Can someone clarify the two?

Thanks in advanced!

sumukh09 - Yes the families and companies are composed of individuals, but that would be an overstep into whole another boundary of assumptions. I agree with you that (E) isn't the strongest answer but as long as the other answers suck and if the correct answer has a "chance" to weaken, th...