For this question, I disregarded D initially as just aligning with the line in the stimulus, rather than confirming it.
In review, after rereading it, I realized that it is the perfect answer. The stimulus says "If it is the case that X, then this is true" and D is saying "It is the case that X".
I initially chose A, thinking that it was allowing for size variants among species. I realize now that this is not necessary to the argument, because the stimulus DOES confirm that they are mammoth teeth.
This is a question where I confidently ruled out every answer choice and had to go back and be like uhh what? In a pinch I went with D, thinking that the passage perhaps provided contexts for various technologies being integrated, but knew it wasn't great. In blind review I went in and highlighted each answer choice and corresponding section in the passage, and stuck with D. I ruled out A, thinking that the parenthetical was essentially relaying previously stated information. I was reading it as "The Kayapo document transactions with the government to create legal records" and missed that this was followed by "to have legal binds." This question through me for a loop for sure, and is one of those where I should've just read it better.
I got this one right after staring at it for about 5 minutes trying to understand how on earth the last line related to the rest of the stimulus. Like okay, there is reason for skepticism. What is the reason? That people hesitate to admit that their behavior does not conform. Wait... what does that have to do with the rest of it? I don't know why it was difficult for me to accept that the argument would be based on the possibility of the 50 year olds lying about giving blood.
I totally struggled with the language here, but was able to get the question right because I was like "Well, it's bad that the myelin is being destroyed, so surely if Gamma is stopping the white blood cells from producing myelin-destroying compounds, that's good. But Gamma being beneficial in this way is contradictory to the fact that it had devastating effects." Then I made sure that all of the other ACs had a rational to be in align with or strengthen the argument, and settled on A.
@kimwexler I believe A is insinuating that the "stealing thunder" move has to be done shortly before that information has been revealed by the opposing side, and that doing it too early can be damaging. This is not what the passage was implying by the quotation you included. That line is simply describing "stealing thunder" and saying it may create an image of credibility.
@Kg7 Typically I will skip the video explanation and instead skim the written explanation below. I give particular attention to any answer choices that I spent extra time considering. Other times, I will watch the video section explaining the breakdown of the passage, because sometimes Jy does it in a clearer way than I did, but will then skip the answer choices if I was sure of my choice and got it quickly. Overall, the explanations are a tool to be used however you best see fit!
This question was infuriating. I quickly mapped the conditionals presenting in the stimulus out, but doubted my map for every question choice. I confused myself so deeply I got it wrong initially, but when I returned in blind review I pretty quickly picked out the correct answer choice. Good to note that in a real test environment, this would be a good contender to flag and come back to it with fresh eyes.
Is this an accurate interpretation of the last one?
If knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, and they do not actually believe that it does not exist, then such knowledge is established.
Offense and /Belief it doesn't exist -> Established
I'm in Michigan and totally interested! I'd be down to meet up in the Ann Arbor area if you were looking for an in-person group!
Hey! If anyone is studying in the Ann Arbor area (MI) and wants to get together please feel free to reach out! I find it's really helpful to talk through questions sometimes, or just work in the same area for motivation!
I see lots of people here stuck on AC B and thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. I disregarded this AC because we have no knowledge of whether rock salt will cost more or less than the present winter-time road maintenance. There is nothing to imply that sales tax would change to reflect this policy change. To me, this seems to be conditions that, while we are granting them truth, do not actually fluctuate whether or not the policy is changed. In our answer choice, we are looking for proof that the policy change (salting the roads again) will disproportionately impact low income individuals.