We are suppose to accept that it's too much of an assumption to assume an actor in the play would have a copy of the play? We are also expected to be familiar with the degree of availability of printed material in the time period mentioned too?

I feel like it is more likely a spectator (who wouldn't possess the script) would memorize their favorite characters lines (think all of the Wicked fans who know all of Glindas lines and songs) than an actor IN THE PLAY not having the script.

Poorly written question, I don't approve ;)

"question 24 is rough" truer words have never been spoken !!

I've gotten nearly all of these right and I honestly have no idea why. I can't actually explain what I'm thinking it just feels like the answer choice I pick makes the most sense to me given the context.

Does anyone have an approach they're using that they can explain/frame for me? I want to understand!

I think this question is a bit unfair because it requires you understand how an adaptation arises. That's the only way you're able to realize A describes an alternative way for an adaptation to arise therefore the phenomena described in a (inbreeding with native salmon) needs to be eliminated.

I keep getting these right but I stare at them forever (I pick the right answer quickly but it always seems SO weak that I can't imagine it's the one that is best for the argument). It's such a weird issue.

I'm afraid of not recognizing necessary v. sufficient assumption questions then second guessing myself and wasting so much time on test day.

If I am 90% sure the answer I read (in this case A) is correct, should I bother reading the others? Should I just skim? What's the best approach for maximizing time savings without minimizing accuracy (too much). What's  the right balance?

Anyone who has an opinion (and has gotten their time to where it needs to be) please lmk.

I just realized I had no idea what burglary actually meant until this very moment in time!

The reason I chose E, (even though my gut was telling me D), was because I remember learning (in these lessons) that the Main Point is ALWAYS the authors perspective.

So I guess that's not the case?

#HELP

#Help

I'm still lost on when it's OK to make assumptions. For example; (in my mind) just because there is an increase in coffee sales doesn't mean there's an increase in overall profit. What If there's a theft problem at the store or any other reason that could cause overall profit to go down despite an increase in coffee sales. Why is it that (seemingly at random) we are able to make some assumptions and it's ok, but other times we can't make the assumption?

I understand we can't attack the premise but the language "It is not possible to identify impulsive behavior" was too strong to not totally obliterate the causal relationship.

If it had said "it is challenging.." then I would have thought differently.

Go with your gut! If the language leaves NO room for misinterpretation (if something is impossible to distinguish, there really no other way to interpret that) then I'd say go for it. Remember "don't attack the premise" is a rule that works 99% of the time, but if you're trying to get that 180, you have to be open to identifying that 1%.

I don't see how C is incorrect.

C. more widely accepted because newly developed alternatives are more expensive than deep-well injection.

More widely accepted (to me) means accepted by the industry as an alternative more so now than in the 1930s when deep well injection began (because the alternative- incinerating, land fills etc is more expensive).

The "newly developed" part is relative. If deep well injection was used in the 1930s, then relatively, landfill and incinerator use is newer, isn't it?

#Help

The reasoning he uses to justify A can also be used to justify B.

Controlling the experiment can be accomplished by saying few workers at factory B ate breakfast, but even this is not a true control because the control groups still has a few people who ate (AC A).

Controlling the experiment is better accomplished by controlling start time and it was a true control. We know that time of day has an effect on productivity so by controlling for it we strengthen the argument.

My main problem is I don't think AC A is a true control (because some in factory B still eat breakfast, sop they are still operating under the experimental groups conditions). If anything, A weakens (in my head) because it tells us factory B is not a true control.

My science background (I'm a HS science teacher) really bit me in the ass here because I assumed (A) was such an obvious assumption it was just established truth thus wouldn't strengthen the argument but just reiterate what is intrinsically true less trust in research = weaker research = less progress . (IDK if that makes sense lol)

I think I was so attached to "mammal", I missed the change to "reptile" so I thought (c) was just irrelevant. Good lesson in close reading!

People are not happy unless they feel that they are needed by others. Most people in modern society, however, can achieve a feeling of indispensability only within the sphere of family and friendship, because almost everyone knows that his or her job could be done by any one of thousands of others.

Happy --> Needed by others --most--> in sphere of family and friends

This must mean: Happy --> Needed by others -<-some --> NOT in sphere of family and friends

A) People who realize that others could fill their occupational roles as ably as they do themselves cannot achieve any happiness in their lives.

The stimulus just says "almost everyone knows that his or her job could be done by any one of thousands of others." it says nothing about how well (or ably) that job can be done.

B)The nature of modern society actually undermines the importance of family life to an individual's happiness.

Stimulus says nothing about the importance of family life being undermined.

C) Most people in modern society are happy in their private lives even if they are not happy in their jobs.

The stimulus says nothing about people being happy or unhappy in their jobs. It just says that most people get happiness from feeling indispensable (needed) and a job is unlikely to give them that feeling. Also it's a jump to say "most people are happy in their private lives" because what if most people DON'T have family or friends in their private lives.. then they wouldn't be happy because they wouldn't feel indispensable.

D) A majority of people in modern society do not appreciate having the jobs that they do have.

The stimulus says nothing about job appreciation.

E) Fewer than a majority of people in modern society can find happiness outside the sphere of private interpersonal relationships

"Fewer than a majority" = SOME!

"outside the sphere of private interpersonal relationships" = NOT in sphere of family and friends

The cause of the epidemic that devastated Athens in 430 B.C. can finally be identified. Accounts of the epidemic mention the hiccups experienced by many victims, a symptom of no known disease except that caused by the recently discovered Ebola virus. Moreover, other symptoms of the disease caused by the Ebola virus are mentioned in the accounts of the Athenian epidemic.

B) Not all of those who are victims of the Ebola virus are afflicted with hiccups.

I chose B because it literally restates a premise (the one I bolded) but used different words. That doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument it just restates the premise. Every other choice either slightly or greatly weakened the argument, B does nothing, nada, zilch! 

The way I saw this is...

The argument says that many of our inclinations must be genetic in origin, and not subject to environmental influences.

D) Identical twins who grow up together tend to develop different beliefs, tastes, and careers in order to differentiate themselves from each other.

"in order to differentiate themselves from each other."

Weakens the argument that genetics (NOT environmental influences) drive our inclinations because if I (as a twin) choose to do something because I want to "differentiate myself from my twin", that desire to be different IS an environmental (not genetic) influence!

E is not wrong (in my opinion) because the passage does draw contrast between other kinds of persuasive writing (advocate contrasted with propagandist) they are both ways of persuading.

Honestly, this is one of those NA questions you have to negate the ans choices and decide if that makes the argument fall apart or not.

If I negate A I'm saying the species that are declining, according to scientists due to industrial pollution, are in the same group as the species that have natural ups and downs. That destroys the argument so I chose A.

#Help

I've been trying to understand conditional relationships conceptually instead of just memorizing the rules but I have run into an issue.

Domain: Beresford Resident

Prohibited ---> /MedicalPurpose

Isn't /MedicalPurpose Necessary in the prohibition of an apt pet (since all residents are held to that rule)? Doesn't the unless preclude all other reasons that apt. pets could be prohibited?