Glad to hear you are enjoying the book so far and more youtube videos are on the way! — the next one should be out in a couple of weeks —
Here’s the dorkiest, teacher-eist thing I’ll say all day —
Misses are like treasure.
There are a few different ways to look at missed problems —
1) oh no, what’s wrong with me?
2) oh no, what’s wrong with this book/test?
3) oh great, here’s where I can raise my score.
Guess which mindset I suggest —
It’s a great feeling to get things right, but you don’t really get that much better doing so — it’s more an indication of the abilities/habits you already have — the improvement comes, again, from missing problems, and using to them to see where you ought to change.
It’s the same 100 question test, again and again, and with each miss you dissect and conquer you will get better and better at it — that’s a big reason I make that set a big harder than average — to give u some of those misses right away (sorry) —
Okay, that’s the end of the cheese and hope you are still with me — now onto the practical stuff —
My best guess as to what would have prevented you from being attracted to (C) was a greater focus on the word “primary” in the author’s conclusion. Notice what that word does to the reasoning — without “primary,” we simply need to consider where depletion of the ozone was a cause or not — the word “primary” forces us to consider not only whether ozone depletion had a causal role or not, but also whether it had a bigger causal role than other potential factors. Right when you see that word, the thought should pop up, “well, wait a minute, how does it compare to other factors? Oh – they haven’t given me evidence of how it compares — so, it’s a gap in reasoning, and I should anticipate answers addressing it —
And if you think about it on those comparative terms, I think it makes it easier to see how (D) could strengthen the argument — by eliminating another potential factor. If you aren’t focused on issue of other possible factors, (D) seems totally out of place.
Here I think the key thing to notice is what is actually discussed in (C) — the broadness of the conclusion vs how specific the evidence is —
As always, let’s start by thinking about the point the author intends to make: humans aren’t better at investing than apes are.
It’s easy to get distracted by the absurdity of the statement (I picture an ape in a suit and glasses drinking coffee and calling his broker) — but, more importantly, when we think about how the author is trying to back up such a broad statement, we see that he bases his conclusion on just one experiment involving a very small sample size — they’ve purposely designed the problem so that the specifics speak to the limited nature of the experiment — just 5 analysts, 1 chimp, 1 month.
Does this one experiment guarantee the broad conclusion? No, it doesn’t. And if you were to explain why not, you would say — well that’s just one example, and so limited, with just 5 people, one ape, a short amount of time…and so on — and if you are thinking in that mindset, I think it’s easier to see how (C) does describe a flaw in the reasoning.
In trying to give a more thorough response, I have to guess as what’s going on in your head, and I realize I can be totally wrong — so, if any of the above doesn’t apply or relate, please feel free to ignore me — but, I hope you found at least some of that helpful — and, if you have any follow-up, don’t hesitate to let me know —
Finally, I suggest taking note of these q’s, and trying them again at a later point in your studies — for one, hopefully the work you do will have made you better at them (and it’ll be good to feel that) and it’ll also be useful in terms of helping you assess what improvement you’ve made, and what work you still have ahead.
Take care — MK