- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
Translation: Some are worried that programs with paranormal elements impede on the public's scientific understanding.
MC: This is baseless!
Why? People have been using paranormal activity in stories, but scientific understanding has still advanced.
The issue that lies with this argument is that just because the scientific understanding of the people has advanced, it doesn't mean that the usage of paranormal activity in entertainment doesn't affect it. Lots of other factors can affect the advancement of scientific understanding.
This is what A states. Our little executive is assuming that since scientific understanding is advancing, the claim that paranormal activity affects it is some baloney. However, they are failing to consider that scientific understanding can still advance even if it's impeded by the usage of paranormal activity in entertainment. You could get tripped up on the usage of the word "phenomenon" to spell out the inconsistencies specifically.
Translation: Usually, book publishers(BP) would release certain books despite profit. Now? Fewer of those books are being released.
MC: BP are more interested in making money than in publishing these certain books.
What's this line of reasoning? They are implying that they must be more interested in profit since they don't release these "unprofitable" books now.
To weaken this argument, you must attack this LOR. Well, what if there was another reason for the drop in publishing these specific books? In questioning that drop, you have to weaken the profit argument here.
That's what B does. It states that there has been a decline in book quality recently. This can introduce another reason for the decline in books in general being published. Now, it doesn't state specifically that quality books = intrinsic merit, but it could account for an alternate argument.
Translation:
OppC: Bilingual Children(BC) have a reduced "conceptual map"
OppA: Bilingual trait overstresses capacity. Evidence? Vocab test: BC got worse scores than most children.
MC: These studies are flawed
Arg: Test was only in one language. Biligual test show children blending understanding of words through both languages.
What does this argument do? It implies that because the BC blend their understanding of words through both languages, of course they will tend to get worse scores on a single-language vocab test. Pushing the narrative that the evidence used was not a proper representation.
This is exactly what E states. The argument specifically points out the error in using that specific study to push that OppC. It could trip some people up by the usage of "Methodological" or "technique"; they essentially just hid the right answer in some word soup. (bleh i got tricked again hahah I love this game)
Translation: Current computer-oriented culture makes children's books put emphasis on illustrations/design = lack of substance --> books that are short-lived items that cover trendy stuff, focus on certain material. (I feel that when I read through it, I tend to skip over specific conditions and group them as a detail.)
A: Incorrect. Why? Our stimulus doesn't imply that the substance of the book is affected by these traits specifically. They simply state that these books hold these traits. (I got tricked and picked this one haha)
B: Correct. Why? They state that this lack of substance leads to books that are short-lived. I believe it could be overlooked because you have to imply that A causing B means that A is important to B, in a way. (oof, I'm not an expert. yet)
Translation: Vermeer has certain props that recur in his paintings. They SEEM to imply a lack of props that he has, BUT most of those props were expensive.
Conclusion: Despite people wondering why there was a specific rotation of props, it wasn't because he lacked props.
Argument being made: Most of his props were expensive.
Question in the argument that arises: Well ok they were expensive... but why does that matter? Couldn't he just have a lack of props because they were expensive??
What Answer E does: logically states that if the lack of recurring objects in his paintings were because of his own lack of props, then we wouldn’t see any expensive props in the first place. Since he does, that means the lack of props in the paintings was not because of his lack of props. (Whew).
Hi,
I recently started studying and I'm signing up for the November Exam. For taking practice exams, would it be better for me to complete the whole curriculum first? Or do people usually take the practice exams/drills at the same time?
Not a super strong test taker, so I'm looking for the best way to manage my time!!
Translation: MC off the bat, no genuine altruistic behavior. Why? Everyone needs to have some sort of self-esteem, and behavior that can seem altruistic can be understood as some sort of self-interested act.
The flaw in this argument here is that just because something can be understood as self-interested, it doesn't mean that it is self-interested. The author assumes that just because altruistic behavior can be understood as self-interested, that means someone is always behaving self-interestedly.
E take the game here, but you have to really look at the wording. It's easy to get tripped up on the other answers because of time, but you have to take into account the vocabulary of these answers.