Just to confirm the initial logic of the premise in the stimulus...

ignoring the unlikely/likely language the premise is:

majority favor → built.

so would it be correct to conclude, /built → /majority favor?

The music critic says, "And rap musicians do not perform purely idiosyncratically but conform their work to the preferences of the public."

It can only be inferred/ assumed that this is a response to the professor's point about rap being individualistic, but the music critic does not explicitly say it is, like they do with rap being non-traditional. Is that the reason (E) is incorrect? Because the music critic only challenges challenges group of claims explicitly?

#feedback #help

For me what cleared up the confusion between A and E was the line:

"This definitely undermines the environmentalist's claim that pollution is eliminating many of these species every year"

If the conclusion was that it undermined a claim that the number of frogs in general were declining, then it would be A because just because there are more kinds of frogs, doesn't mean there are more frogs of those kinds. It could be that a number of frogs were reclassified.

But, since it never actually talks about the number of specific frogs, just number of species, it should be E.

Too bad I didn't see this until BR

If someone can confirm that this line of reasoning is valid I would very much appreciate it.

#feedback

I would love some help understanding a solid reason to rule out E in Question 17. From the explanation in the video it seemed like the main issue was that E doesn't talk about species at all and is irrelevant.

So was my mistake that my inference that, since a big part of the time theory was that too frequently changing climactic conditions (caused by ice ages) gave no time for species to develop and grow, too big a leap? Which would make A stronger because it says things in a way that supports the theory with less inferences and this therefor stronger?

I got the answers down to A and E so I'm justing trying to see how I can avoid this sort of mistake in the future.

#feedback How does the part in the stimulus where the archaeologist mentions future archaeologists who may not have access to our records affect C? Because in the explanation we are told to discount this one because they already have all the data, but isn't one of the archaeologist's points that future archaeologists won't have that data?

They say it's not a mistake is not a mistake if you learn something from it. I didn't learn anything from this.

Being concerned about the current situation = troubled, can be argued as being just as big a leap as, being nostalgic = underrating past problems.

(concerned about the current situation = troubled is a smaller leap sure, but still a leap)

This made A and D a toss up for me.

What I think would have helped me notice why A is wrong is that, it says "tend to underrate past problems when the country faces troubling times."

Marc and Robert are only talking about the here and now. Not a pattern through history, what their country does whenever they go through bad times. Just about what their country is doing at this particular point in time. Therefore you can't say they are agreeing about a tendency or principle. This eliminates A.

I really wish I thought about this when answering the question, maybe I would have gotten it right.

#feedback

So we are to assume that the overlap in potential joiners and donators is so minimal that the actual percentage of people on board is 30%+.

Makes sense, but what does one look for to show us that such an assumption is a better, or more reasonable, or closer to core reasoning than the assumption that the general estimates of historical percentages does not reflect the amount the 16% is willing to donate?

I see how E works but it requires us to make an assumption favorable against the argument. So, what can we do to discern that this assumption is acceptable but assumptions made to make the other ACs work are not?

Any help is understanding this, or tips and tricks, or rules of thumb would be immensely appreciated. Because currently it seems arbitrary to me.