@Malcngham you are right that the word only usually indicates necessary, but “the only” is a sufficient indicator.

@Malcngham

@nick.treb thank you! Drawing it out did help

Excuse messy handwriting, but if anyone wants to see the circle version it’s here

Can someone explain the Maria training hard one better because I thought it’s all supposed to move in the same direction. Answers B I thought incorrectly flips the sufficient and necessary conditions

5/5 but timing wasn’t great

I think Q4 was written SO POORLY. I interpreted it so differently. First I found there referential (are) and the referent is "the instruments that are).

Then i read it as "Detecting planets outside our solar system requires more sophisticated instruments than [the instruments that are] currently available.

so then I asked myself, what is the quality/characteristic? "which kind of instrument will detect planets outside our solar system?" which brings us to compare the two different kinds of instruments mentioned: more sophisticated instruments (not available) and current (less sophisticated) instruments that are already available.

so my final answer was written like this:

1) instruments currently available vs. more sophisticate instruments

2) which will detect planets outside our solar system?

3) more sophisticated instruments.

For number 5 I said accustomed households versus non-accustomed households….

@Littlebowpink I got this one right but used the wrong terminology. Instead of glacial periods I wrote “non-interglacial periods” because I didnt know the right fit for the opposite haha

Q4 confuses me. Is it not a negative comparative? I wrote that either humans act equally selfishly or unselfishly, or they act more unselfishly….somebody please explain why I’m wrong cause I was very confident. He said that if we see “no” or “not” in the stimulus it’s a negative comparison

just as I was understanding modifiers and Referentials, this has now thrown me for a loop. I thought number 5 was trying to trick us and throw in two Predicate object “that”s, so i wrote my answer as:

Subject-noun: a bakery

Modifying “bakery”: in a region

Modifying region: facing a wheat shortage

Predicate verb: realizes

Predicate object: that

Object-clause: it cant continue to bake its traditional bread and switches to a recipe

Predicate object 2: that

Object clause 2: uses cornmeal

Clearly I am way overthinking this. Also I looked it up and the internet said that the reason the second “that” is not another predicate object is because is is apparently a subject pronoun in this case, and the object of this part of the sentence is the cornmeal.

I’m so annoyed didn’t read the question correctly and chose c because i thought i was supposed to resolve the discrepancy….i gotta read more carefully

@ZayaanDamji ofc good luck!

I feel like using the word "not" for other or otherwise is making it more confusing for me because it makes it sound even less natural. I wish they found a better way to explain it.

for Question 2 it says "acted" is a referent, but I don't see how.

for Q2 I said:

"the plan" points to "to reform the electoral process)

"anyone who thinks otherwise" is a negative referential to "anyone who thinks the president acted NOT in the best interest of the nation.

"this decision" points to "the decision to reject the plan proposed by parliament to reform the electoral process"

did anyone else get this?

the diagrams are just confusing me here... how would the sentences sound with "not" in them?

@AlenaKane also the internet says that "it" is not a referential in this sentence?

also how is "it" a referential, because when you plug "keeping deep woulds free of bacteria" in for the word it, that doesn't make any sense. can anybody explain this?

@CarolineHaskins I agree with this, I thought that makes no sense

I was totally overthinking the last problem because I was only getting half right for the others, so I thought the last question also had "one" and "oneself" as referents for "the person making the jokes"

Yay I got most of this right. I just didn’t separate “fail to kill” into “fail” and “to kill” as a modifier of fail.

@WeepingWillow because the verb is also drinking. The cat doesn’t just like milk, it likes to drink milk.

this cooked me so bad...

is there then no object? I got this so wrong and thought it was "Opposition leaders (noun) sabotage (verb) the vote (object) which now that I look at that see that is a completely different meaning and the opposite of what the original sentence is trying to convey.

@ZayaanDamji Hi! the reason it's not in the same position as q4 anymore is because it has turned into a sub-conclusion/another premise. you can use the thus/therefore trick. "But this is not a sustainable, long-term solution. Thus, they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately". It not being a sustainable long-term solution becomes support for why operations should be shut down immediately.

Question 2 almost got me. Circled back to it after answering the rest. Sometimes if you don't know, coming back to it later can give you a clearer head (rather than pondering over it for too long).