Hi Noah! If the conclusion had said: "always result" instead of "can result" would (D) be correct since we are presenting a case where it doesn't always result in risk of kidney damage (i.e. showing the cause without the effect)? But because the conclusion uses soft language and...

7. (A) Question type: Weaken the conclusion The core argument’s main premise is that the likelihood of serious injury in high-risk workplaces has declined since 1955, when safety legislation was passed. It concludes that the legislation caused the decline. We can weaken this connection by suggestin...

Hello mshermn, I narrowed down to choice B and D ending up choose B out of gut feeling. I find both are flawed. I followed your explanation of D's flaw: "(D) has a similar flaw to answer choice (C). The author states that the debate continues." then I find B would also be flawed, since th...

I think an unwarranted assumption is being made with (A). It says that wind and precipitation patterns may be more extreme where mountain ranges are higher, but does it necessarily follow that that would contribute to increased erosion? If a concrete example is needed, I was thinking that drought, ...

Thanks for posting, and for explaining your reasoning! So, we're told that wood-frame houses are much better at withstanding earthquakes than masonry houses, but that a recent earthquake destroyed a wood-frame house and not its neighboring masonry house. We're asked to explain this result. Now, you...

To me, (E) has no effect on the argument because we don't know what the criteria for accidents classified as serious is AFTER 1986. Doesn't the stimulus tell us in the first sentence what the criteria is for serious? Those that result in hospitalization or death. So we do know what the classificati...

If you need less tools when you use VersaTool but some of the tools included are never needed then I would have to use other tools. Not quite. What this means is that those tools are never NEEDED. You don't "have to use other tools," because there's nothing to do with them. What (A) is ge...

Answer choice (E) feels very tempting for two good reasons. First, it's on topic and seems to provide an alternative explanation than is offered in the conclusion. If it did though, it would be the right answer. However, answer choice does not actually offer an alternative explanation for why the n...

A, B and E reverse the relationship between courage and its conditions I'm having trouble eliminating A, B, and E and am not sure whether the reason quoted above is valid for eliminating those answer choices. That is, A, B, and E all have ~courage in the necessary position, which I believe is actua...

Awesome post! Your explanation is spot on. The museum visitor argues that raising the minimum wage will raise museum expenses -- but what if all the employees already make well over the minimum wage? Then it would have no effect! Strictly speaking, we negate "some" by changing it to "...

I'm still very confused by your explanation in eliminating (C). (C) is incorrect because the argument does in fact consider this -- and says that it would not matter! While the conclusion does state that it wouldn't matter (even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, th...

Could you go into more depth regarding why (A) is incorrect? Since the economists' studies rarely cover alcoholic beverages, I could see the economists saying "but wait!" -- the scope of our studies deal with products that aren't alcoholic beverages, so the apparently paradoxical finding (...

Could someone please clarify the second sentence that starts with "However, if they occur frequently, the editor may modernize..." Specifically, I'm wondering whether the clause from the first sentence "AND they do not interfere with a reader's comprehension" gets distributed to ...

dan Wrote:so X and Y might have a weak correlation, but X may be a factor in causing Y regardless.

Could you explain this in more detail? How is it possible if X and Y are not correlated that X might still cause Y?

I am having a difficult time how this justifies both claims in the conclusion. The necessary condition of this contrapositive HAS VAST MEANINGS. You are essentially saying NOT BOTH A being legal and B being illegal. This has a multitude of ways of being expressed, correct? Analogous situation: [A a...

I'm still not seeing how the argument relies on circular reasoning. The argument concludes that human behavior cannot be fully understood. It's evidence for this is that some human action cannot be truly comprehended. I can see how the quoted part makes it obvious circular reasoning is involved, but...

I suppose they could have, but what does that have to do with the argument? although (A) is the best answer, i dislike how this question is worded because the female physicians could have been taking supplements of folate and b6 along with foods that do not contain nonvitamin nutrients that inhibit...

The argument is very simple: our evidence is the fact that the highest of one category = the highest in another category. This evidence is then taken to suggest that there is a causal relationship such that being high er in one cateogry leads to being high er in another category. Love this explanat...

Id like to throw in my two cents to why B, in my mind, is actually the correct answer. Your reasoning is faulty because you've confused causation with correlation. Let me explain this. The vast majority (over 6 is a majority) of OPV's polio causing was not the fault of the immunization, but the fac...

Hi Noah, could you explain why A incorrect? I find it quite supported in paragraph 2. Thanks in advance! I eliminated (A) because the passage states in line 32 "they do not reproduce EXCEPT WHEN they are feeding on the cyclamen mites." Presumably that means IF they reproduce, THEN they ar...