Chose the correct answer timed, on BR I thought A was doing what D does (instead of it being that we don't know why businesses may have failed, I read it as we don't know WHETHER they did). Specific factors are irrelevant

Big lesson for me here is being more aware of when you're making inferences that seem logical but are still unsupported.

You have basically an unlimited credit card and you have to spend a ton of money financing an empire? Yeah, it sounds logical that you might spend more than you otherwise would have.

But what the passage actually tells us it that not having limitations made it harder to get money.

I think I chose D because I falsely assumed that they didn't pay back their loans because they borrowed too much to do so. However, we have no reason to think they couldn't pay it back. For all we know, they just chose not to because they had the power to do so.

@angantous Yes! I agree-that's precisely why I eliminated E on BR; I do think if it said "any prize" that would be a meaningful way to disanalogize lottery tickets from insurance policies

Okay so I mapped it out as:

Get what you want -> feel pleasure

_

/Pleasure -> /fundamental desire

I was confused because, at first glance, the conclusion just seemed like the contrapositive of a premise + a condition that had some slight shift in meaning (getting what you want is equated to fundamental desire). So I chose E because I thought the conclusion was simply the contrapositive of the premise + a condition that had some shift in meaning (basketball games =/= soccer games).

However, I don't think the "shift in meaning" between getting what you want and fundamental desire is parallel to the shift in meaning I perceived between a basketball game and a soccer game. Fundamental desire is maybe just a subset of what you want; basketball games are not a subset of soccer games tho lmao.

For parallel questions were you are asked to match shift in meaning, the shift itself must be similar from the stimulus to the answer choice in matter of degree, not just the fact that there was a shift. E was not

@AbbigailWood

"To fulfill that need, the core value of beneficence—which does not actually conflict with most reformers' purposes—should be retained, with adaptations at the oath's periphery by some combination of revision, supplementation, and modern interpretation."

Again, no specific revision is proposed, and the main point is that the core of the code should be keep the same, hence why the correct answers are correct, but I don't think #8 A and #10 E can accurately be eliminated for the reasons stated by the light bulb explanation. The author does seem to endorse a theoretical revision, but does not propose one. What he does propose is that the core of the code should remain intact.

For 8 and 10, I am struggling because the author does explicitly endorse potential revisions to the periphery of the code, but not to the core of the code. I would say A can be eliminated now because the author does not propose specific revisions--this is also why I think answer choice E of 10 can be eliminated--but I don't understand the explanation for eliminating these answer choices (being that the author never endorsed modifications in general). Yes, keeping the core of the code the same is the main point--the author even highlights how proposed changes don't actually affect the core of the code--but I think it is a bit reductive to say the author doesn't endorse any theoretical revision at all. The periphery of a code is still part of the code itself, no?

@aabi1020 I was thinking that too. However, it's describing what's outside our "comic bubble" as what we cannot see, which is why I think literal meaning makes more sense. I feel like if it was describing what's outside of our cosmic bubble as what we cannot understand, then I think E, the more figurative meaning, would make more sense

I struggled in between C and E because I identified the MP as pathogens that incapacitate hosts can in fact be reproductively successful (with transmission, i.e., the mechanism for this, as support for that MP). For this reason, I thought E described the support for the MP but not the MP itself.

While I understood that C was incomplete and that the statement virulence needed to also include the bit about transmission, in my mind, it was still the only answer choice that stated the main point. I've found that in the past, an answer choice that covers the most paragraphs is generally a good choice, but it might not be correct if it doesn't include the thesis/what is being supported to begin with. I thought this was one of those instances, hence why I chose C.

Is the strategy here to be more discerning with what disqualifies an answer choice?

@yuyuecarly468 The reason I understand C as better is because it is a chained conditional. Statues, constitutions, and precedents in and of themselves aren't the end goal, restraint on power is. Likewise, relevant and sufficient evidence isn't the end goal, supporting a theory is.

Restraint on power -> statutes, constitutions, precedents -> judicial candor

Supported theory -> relevant, sufficient -> accurate

A is just unbiased -> representative (I chose A too lol). We're missing that a necessary requirement for our end goal has its own necessary requirement.

Could B have been right if it said human beings cannot achieve happiness if they live in a merchant society?

@dancingqueen138 You have to know what de facto and economic segregation separately means

@ElizabethBerenguer This is what confused me too. However, I think the "per capita" idea is more supported when you consider the recommendation at hand in direct comparison to the alternative of suburbs (i.e., people driving long distances to go to the store/do things). Because it would be unwarranted to assume the actual number of people in the area changes, and because we know that each person doesn't have to drive as far to get to a store under the new recommendation, this supports the idea that there must be more stores. Alternatively, how is it that everyone who once had to drive 20 minutes to get to a Walmart can suddenly walk to one without there being more of them?

@Wishmeluckokay While the conclusion does say it was someone else, it does not simply state it was someone else--the conclusion is saying the joker is someone OTHER THAN Miller. So it doesn't grant the conclusion imo because "it's someone else" INCLUDES the idea that it is NOT Miller

I way over analyzed this question. Like another commenter pointed out, I thought that if public officials and CEOs are cooperating, they are inherently different from each other. However, this need not be the case, at least not in a way that does anything for the argument. A professor and TA can cooperate together. Does this mean they're different from each other? Maybe. Could they both be doing the same job? Maybe. Doesn't really tell us anything about whether they do different things.

I didn't like that B only focused on core responsibilities when other characteristics of CEOs were also mentioned. However, if you identify the assumption (that CEOs and public officials are the same because they do the same thing), you realize that all we need to do is show that maybe they don't do the same thing. B shows that, even if it doesn't kill the argument.

Answered this like a PSAr question instead of a NA question. I thought "never" was okay because the answer choice guaranteed the conclusion, but that's not what we were asked to do lololol

I chose A at first because I could see the fine (judgement) being determined by input (age). However, I think B does a better job of analogizing--particularly because Passage A describes inputs as being impossible to calculate as it relates to judgement, which isn't really congruent with child or adult being one of two inputs that lead to a specific, cacluatatable judgement.

I thought this question was interesting because the author doesn't really comment on the artistic merit of fakes, but does imply that the imposed categorization of original vs. "fake" in African art does not necessarily detract from that arts value by means of questioning the means of distinction.

I was drawn to B and C originally because of my misunderstanding of the passage. The final paragraph discusses the implication of Stave's study on other studies. It is important to recognize that everything proceeding this discusses OTHER studies, and that subset of studies alone.

When the following lines said that Stave's revised her own work, I thought it meant her own study just discussed. However, it simply means that the implications of her current study have implications on other studies--including her own OTHER study. C likewise cannot support the current study because we are no longer talking about that specific "set."

I will be highlighting every use of the word "other" or "another" from now on lol

@mhann007469 Yes. It's not saying "don't violate other people's rights" but rather "you only have rights because of the social contract that allows everyone to". More about personal responsibility

@mayamalik I thought that for a second too, but I see that as the author moreso commenting on it being a legal problem/practical problem. I think if the author was outwardly against interception itself, there would be more tonal language imbedded in the examples the passage provided. I could see the author as sympathetic to the fact there is a problem, but I think it's too much a jump to extrapolate that to the actual employees imo, which the AC indicating the author is against interception would ask us to do

@jkatz1488955 I thought the same too, but because "undiscovered species" wasn't mentioned for this hypothesis, I ruled it out.

@ccmarkett I was confused on this too. My logic is maybe he's not responsible for the lack of rain, but that doesn't mean he's not responsible for the farm's yields.

@sergi0952 I almost eliminated the answer because of this too lol. But the argument said taste receptors are the source of habituation, so without the source of habituation it makes sense that there is no habituation

@fyepes582 Just coming to say I appreciate both explanations for D! I think that's really helpful. It strengthens the idea that younger kids experience the effect by showing that older kids don't have it to the same degree. Isolating one specific subset of kids the conclusion is referring to specifically. But, as you and others mention, it also confirms findings in a similar group.