Best way to think through this one is to remember that first passage A does not actually provide details about any of the 3 principles it describes. It provides definitions and for the proposed principle of rectification it gives both a definition and presents in what scenarios it would be used but the passage is large meant to define and so it fits the general view approach. More importantly on passage B I think the key is that you can't read "it does not necessarily endorse" to mean that it's not in favor of the argument described at all. I think it's meant to be read as there's evidence on both sides that the author agrees with some parts of the argument and doesn't agree with others. Which is best supported by the "one natural (one might almost say obvious)" and "this may be impractical; compromises might have to be made" phrasing within the passage.

Maybe this is a dumb question but I didn't understand that the question was asked about the proposed regulations created in P4, I instead thought that the questions was asking about the existing regulations that Mali passed. Could someone explain how you know the question stem is asking only about P4

@Katie_Volpert But your example of this is exactly what makes A feel incorrect. In the case of two soccer players where was a child prodigy and the other was a good child with intensive training the way out differentiate exceptional innate talent is right there in the childhood record of each. Again, because no one starts intensively training at birth it feels clear that way to distinguish between whether a player is superior is their performance when they first started the game. Even the passage seems align with this is by saying at least ten years of intensive, deliberate practice is what makes folks superior. I'd argue that anyone who is exceptional prior to year 10 you could consider to have exceptional innate talent

I understand A is the most correct here, but I think that I challenge anyone to make a give an example of what a case would be where it's difficult or impossible to ascertain the difference between extensive training and exceptional talent. I think what making this question so difficult for people is that it's intensive training is either something someone is doing or something they are not doing. It feels like a no brainer that if prior to training someone was doing exceptionally well then they have exceptional innate talent and if they weren't doing exceptionally well they did not have exceptional innate talent. I'm not trying to argue for no reasons but I think a much better tutor explanation for this questions is POE as opposed to what's here.

@LowriThomas I disagree with you statement that the other answer choices don't accurately reflect a piece of information in the passage. Top of the second paragraph we see a reference to AC A. I think POE is a good way of approaching this question but you will get tripped up just relying on that here

Going to be honest. I got this one wrong like a lot of people and what it truthfully comes down to is that in a test taking scenario it's hard to decipher what definition of *real-world trade* is and somehow connect that with the phrase *intentionally commodified* and even more importantly with in-world sales. There's an inherent vagueness in the way that first and third phrases I mentioned specifically are presented where it very well could be referring to selling real items for virtual currency. However, if you consider just the word intention you realize you need to find a part of the passage where the author outlines what the game makers actually allow not just what players are doing and gives you the right answer. Very long but TL;DR sometimes it's just as important to parse out each word in the highlighted phrase as it is to understand the full phrase

Did anyone else have trouble with this questions and question 11 because the time period that's "today" in the passage is not well defined and is likely earlier than it actually today? I'm just wondering if we should anticipate having to deal with something like this on the actual test?

@BrooklynHope Also I chose C because it didn't fully click for me that is contradicted the first sentence of the passage. As I read it now it feels like a no-brainer but once again proof there's such a thing as too quick

E being the correct answer feels misleading at first because most often in resolve discrepancy questions it feels like the side of the discrepancy that is more subjective or more likely to be subjective is typically what is bolstered by the correct. Here it's flipped the police tabulation feels more objective as it deals with actual numbers as opposed to a survey that relies on people's memories. For me understanding that I was bringing in a bias to the question that isn't present in the stimulus was helpful in understanding the answers

This is a great example of a question stem where speed reading will get you into trouble. I was moving quickly taking the exam and didn't realize the question stem only referred to the part of the analogy regarding time at a stoplight not the complete analogy that also refers to time spent in traffic

@Kevin_Lin I used the sneak peek function and saw that I got a 100% so I didn't even need to BR

@Kevin_Lin I saw the same passages about risk communication and outcomes analysis for this drill that I had in the drill for the C&D section

Echoing what others have said these are the exact same passages and questions that show up in the critique or debate drill. If the intent is to show that critique and debate passages can also be problem-analysis passages that's totally fine but would be helpful to clarify

I got this question wrong but understand why D is correct. However, I would advise against anchoring on the last sentence of the explanation about how the final sentence about Michelangelo's work assimilates and transcends as I think it weakens the answer. The hardest part of this passage is that the author isn't very present other than the first few sentences and the last few sentences of the passage. Focusing review on spotting when the author is present as opposed to summarizing another author or critique allows you to choose D with certainty.

@BrooklynHope Furthermore on answer choice E if you negate and say the move to Ocean View will come with a significant pay raise there's nothing about that that implies the raise is significant enough to allow them to afford new houses in Ocean View. Feels like this answer implies that the significant pay raise is relative to what the employees make now whereas them not being able to afford the neighborhood is absolute based on the difference between home price and salary

I feel like the reasoning for A being incorrect is not true. The conclusion is that ONCE THE COMPANY HAS MOVED, most Acme employees will have a commute of more than 30 minutes. If you negate A you then have the assumption that no Acme employees can afford housing within a 30 minutes commute of Milton and which means they are commuting more than 30 min in the present. Since the conclusion of the stimulus is contingent upon the company moving as written the negation of A nullifies the conclusion because moving is no longer the factor that triggers the 30 min or more commute.

@WilliamZiebellRichards I feel like C to me doesn't even look that great but it seems no worse than A which is a difficult thing to contend with

I'm struggling with A being the best choice of these 5 options because it seems to fly in the face of the fact that if there's an indispensable aspect of residency training that requires long hours those long hours could still jeopardize lives. To me, those concepts are not mutually exclusive and thus the negation of this indispensable fact could still yield more lives saved overall which to me seems to be what the conclusion around working hours is focused on.

@ConnerKline Why did you keep the most relationship between well design public places and comfortable public places the stimulus states all well designed PPs are comfortable

I answered C which I see in hindsight is incorrect because we can't say that most coffeehouses that are well designed feature artwork that confuses the most relationship between public places and well-designed (most = 51%+ coffee houses could be very small in the total number of PPs so they may be in the category of well-designed PPs without artwork). However I'm caught up on why not uncomfortable should be instantly translated to comfortable? I feel like it's usually not the case that the negation of a sufficient condition is it's antonym

I think what's confusing me about this question is that I think implicit in Susan's remarks is that she does not believe contemporary art has become big business. I interpreted her I disagree statement as being directly against the conclusion of Leah's statement (CA has become big business) whereas Susan's second sentence is an example of why she disagrees (it's not big business there's still small galleries with innovative art). I understand that D is correct too but I'm not sure I fully grasp why it's a substantially better answer than C

In question 4 isn't everyone a referential for voters?