I did this question right, but I'm not sure why C is wrong. If the children wathed these advertisements before, their identical preferences may attribute to the effects of advertisements which weakens the argument.

Why is E better than C? C is directly supported by line 45-47. Any help is appreciated!

This one is tricky for me.
A is wrong because Mary agrees with Tom about the effects of court reversals in the past, that they bring no harm to the legal system. Mary simply disputes about the recent reversal.
C is wrong because Tom didn't criticize reversals at all.

Is B wrong because it attacks the premise of Tamara's conclusion?

I don't quite understand why A is better than B. B seems to be a better paraphrase of line 9-13: "define the limits of people's actions with respect to other people". Where is "obligation" in A coming from? Thanks in advance!

I think A would a good answer if it says "not all of the species of insects the painted spider prey on are flying insects." Any thought?

My cambridge packets say the answer of this question is B, and I actually find it plausible. If the pubication of an unattributed statement requires that the statement have actually been made, journalists cannot invent stories, which strengthens the teacher's argument.

I have no idea how D is supported by the text. Please help!

Even though many of the other answers are wrong for confusing reasons, (E) is correct for a very simple one: it says that the claim in question is part of the evidence for a conclusion about the critics' disagreement. I still have some problem with E. The claim is held by the first group of critics...

I did this question wrong because I take "those who regularly use papercrete are familiar with the properties of the material" as a premise instead of an intermediary conclusion. I don't think this statement is supported by any information in the stimulus. Any thought?

There's no simple answer, but here's my strategy. Early in the section (Q1-15) I generally stay very flexible on language and allow them shifts and only tighten up on the language if I have more than one answer choice remaining. Later in the section (Q16-25) I scrutinize language much more carefull...

I chose B for this one. My reasoning is, if the concentration of caffeines in the plants is lower than what in the preparation, it may be effectively kill the larvae, thus it cannot function as a defense for the plants. The negation of B destroys the argument. Why am I wrong?

(A) Imagine for a second if (A) weren't true: The current techniques to determine hybrids have NOT proven to be unreliable. That would mean we don't really know what animals are hybrids and which ones aren't. So what? We could still revive hybrids by interbreeding original species, so we still woul...

I have a different view about the conclusion of this argument. The conclusion, in my view, is only by giving adolescents the vote WILL these interests be represented. It never implies that these interests SHOULD be represented. I am really confused about this one.

I understand why E is right but I don't get why D is wrong. Just because the capital happens to be the largest cities in no way means that they are most selected because residents prefer large cities to small ones. Isn't it a correlation-causation flaw?

I chose E instead of D. I kind of understand why E is wrong: The fact that the crisis ended the age of the dinosaurs does not mean the dinosaurs comprised the majority of species perished. However, the fact that Cretaceous crisis was minor comparing to Permian doesn't mean Cretaceous's rate of extin...

maryadkins Wrote:
(C) is a wordy way of restating our exact argument. "If skeletal anatomy alone...behavior" = our lions and tigers example (i.e. the premise), and "then it is never... packs" = our conclusion.

Wait! Can an assumption be something that the argument explicitly say?

I don't understand why A is the right answer. I think A can explain that the increase in gas bills does not result from the water heater. For example, before the installation, Jimmy's gas bills were $20, and the old water heater used 20% of it, which is $4. After the installation, his bills are $40,...

Same question as above.

The sentence "Government will be able to recapture these capable administrators by raising salaries..." entails D to be true. Therefore D cannot be an "assumption" made by the argument.

I picked B over C. My reasoning is if B stands, it is sufficient to reach the conclusion that the prohibition would ensure that such students would do well academically, while certainly B is not required. C is required by the argument, but it is insufficient to lead to the conclusion. I have a gener...