Keyboards were designed to limit typewriters speed because EARLY typewriters would jam frequently. Heavily implied that this is a problem characteristic of EARLY typewriters and not modern laptops, hence the talk of replacing QWERTY with something more efficient.

I got this correct through POE

1. Soil from nearby land taken out of production 20 years ago was scattered on native plant species. This soil has beneficial microorganisms.

2. Enriched > not Enriched, but not as good as the nearby land

Conclusion: Fields farmed for many years are overrun with aggressive disease organisms, while, beneficial microorganisms are lacking.

Question: Why out of production (nearby land) > enriched?

Misunderstanding: Enriched soil brought over the aggressive disease organisms.

1. He was confused which one applied

2. He breaks national

3. If you broke local the excuse that he did not know would have worked

Conclusion: Local does not include national, so not following due to ignorance makes sense. National is always applied, so even if you thought you were supposed to be following local, you should still have been following national.

Regardless, this stimulus should of had an additional premise saying that it is not one or the other. I assumed it was either national or local codes applied. I mean why would the defendant even make the argument about switching them up if national is always applied. I guess you have to assume he was not aware.

The question asks what the argument is "most" vulnerable to. The conclusion compares tendency to laugh and actually laughing at the comic video, but there is no support that these two things are at all different. The conclusion falls apart.

If you conclude that because: A--> B --> C, there is a casual mechanism between A --> C, the relationship between A & B or B & C must be true.

I understood this was the flaw, but mistakenly chose answer (C). Answer (C) is incorrect because who knows if these adults are the researchers or if these adults are even incorrect.

Model to understand does not mean Ellison actually was influenced by these themes. Even less supported, that Ellison incorporated any of these themes into the Invisible Man.

Ended up incorrectly ruling answer (B) out and was left with answer (D).

Assumed answer (D) was referring to the African American novelistic style, which the passage states his contributions to development were lessened, not that it was developed or that he took ideas from it. Instead answer (D) is talking about the "many European writers" from the beginning of the passage.

Almost fell for answer (D).

The stimulus directly rules out answer (D) by stating"the epistemological beliefs of the medieval epistemologists," would just involve checking off if a medieval epistemologist believed a certain idea. There is no reference to deciding if these beliefs were correct, or believed by all, just if at least one believed it.

We can make no conclusion on whether a medieval epistemologist held a belief if we have no idea who was a medieval epistemologist (answer (E)).

Answer (A) is incorrect because the construction of the road is only necessary to this one way of strengthening Sierra's economy. There may be other ways that do not involve constructing this road.

Read the sentence wrong several times.

"A CLS scholar might object...." what are they objecting to?

The game analogy.

Their objection is: That legal cases are unlike games.

What the sentence is not saying: They are objecting to games being unlike legal cases, and agreeing to the analogy.

Very confusing, but the second part of the sentence, "in that one cannot merely apply the rules without appealing to...." helps.

@CarolineN The issue with (B) is I believe "the cause of which is unknown." Disease Z could also be caused by the size of the interstitial nucleus in the hypothalamus. Sort of like people who are exposed to radiation getting multiple forms of cancer, you would not say one form of cancer caused the other. Another issue is "many male cats," many could literally mean anything. If 5 people in a medium-sized town contacted a rare type of parasite, that could be also be many.

Real question, answer (E) states disease X is a subtype of disease Y, whats to say the reason X is a subtype and not idk the same disease is that it involves the size of interstitial nucleus in the hypothalamus and not some other part of the brain.

I feel like the assumption that disease X must have the same cause as disease Y because its a subtype is unreasonable.

T1D and T2D have completely different causes.

I think I see why now.

Interstitial nucleus is in the hypothalamus. A subtype may differ between the parts of the hypothalamus, but a subtype differing between different larger parts of the brain is a bit weaker. Although, there could be a defining characteristic of the interstitial nucleus that one of the parts of the frontal cortex shares.

Answer (D) is correct because at no point in the passage does the author suggest degree of ownership claimed by resource-providers institutions will not vary from case to case. While even with the explanations from the comments and JY, I still do not understand how in any way the passage suggests ownership may vary from case the case. 100% the passage does NOT suggest is will not vary. This is enough to select answer (D).

Answer (C) is suggested. According to the author a maximalist institution allows ownership that does not arise in the course of employment or from use of resources. We know maximalist functions nearly identically to a supramaximalist institution which claims ownership of all faculty inventions using university resources.

If you take "outside the institution" as outside the course of employment, and if you remember that supramaximalist and maximalist cover the same stuff, it must be the faculty that would lose ownership in a supramaximalist institution because they used institution resources, would not get ownership in a maximalist institution because they are not employed.

Take notice that the sufficient conditions for ownership at a maximalist institution includes [or]. Either not employed or no resources used is sufficient to have ownership.

Is it wrong to choose answer (A) based on the statement, "especially when international law declares the existence of universal human rights."

The reason I got this wrong is because I assumed the first sentence stating they are "wrongly criticized" means they are not in any way blameworthy. Instead, what the argument is truly saying is that advertising agencies do not create false needs, they exploit existing ones.

The question stem is throwing me off. Is it asking what is included in the passage or what the author believes? Of course the author does not believe answer (E), but wouldn't the first two paragraphs be examples of artists having the power to predict social change? Although examples used in an opposing argument.

Lipoprotein (a) could be a permanent, though nonharmful, change in the body associated with higher consumption of salt. Therefore, changing your diet could still lower heart disease risk while not impacting lipoprotein (a) levels.

Answer (E) explains the trend but not the increase. Not a very good answer but stronger than answer (D).

Answer (D) states a basic principle of journalism is to inspire debate. This answer, similar to (E), does not explain the increase, but it also does not explain the trend. While not verifying the truth of quotes could lead ot debate, it could also lead to less debate.

If we stay in budget this year we will not stay in budget next year. We have to renovate either this year or next.

If the only way to stay within budget this year is to not renovate then...

stay within budget this year ---> /renovate this year ---> /stay within budget next year

This is the sufficient assumption. That this years budget cannot cover the renovation.

We know the renovation is too expensive for next years budget, what if this years budget is even smaller.

Answer (D): The museum will exceed this year's budget if it renovates this year.

So in the future assume "vast majority" means at least ~80% and not at least 51%?

I didn’t even realize until I checked my email this morning. Thank you!!! 💗💗🎉

If this wasn't the experimental section, answer (C) would be wrong for talking about nobles and merchants when the stimulus only makes a conclusion on peasantry. But maybe I'm out to lunch 🤣🤣😭

Confuses professional (adjective) with professional (noun)

@YeniseCamacho I don't have any specific advice, but if I get questions wrong, especially if I get them wrong in the BR, I write long explanations of why the answer I chose was wrong and what makes the correct answer right in a journal.

@ObeidaHamish I started with a 155 I believe. I've been studying consistently since the beginning of this year. Jan-Apr I was doing the 7Sage core curriculum, now I'm just trying to focus on full prep tests, or prep tests w/out the experimental section since I've got an accommodation.

@andrearovelo Yes!