Familiar is referential to the argument.
What argument?
Novel not true lit. unless a bit dull.
Great.
Now for choices.
A: We aren't looking for what makes something great. Immediately gone. (We only know what is nec. to make a novel great, not suf.)
B: Same as before, but also, A and B just kinda go against the 'familiar' view anyway.
C: Well... Dunno. I won't eliminate it since the previous one's clearly go against.
D: Just has nothing to do with the 'familiar' argument.
E: More or less same as D. It is using the wrong referential is my guess of the trap, but it wasn't attractive to me. In more detail, being a bit dull and fitting genre rules are not at all related. (Could be all genre requirements are suuuuper interesting, so a novel of a particular type is never great lit. Like so many say about lit. rpg...)
I don't second guess on p.o.e., so I chose C. I even now don't really get it. Challenge on a reader doesn't seem the same as a bit dull, but it is definitely, at the very least, the closest.
Anyway, hope this helps someone.
5 secs over since I had to double check between A and E. Better to be over time than get it wrong. If two sound attractive, and the questions stem is 'passage states', you can double check.
Last line of par 2 directly states accuracy as the reason for presence. I suppose, for A, you can also make a reasonable assumption (maybe)---that medical professionals don't DECIDE if something is admissible as evidence. (I'm guessing this is a judge, or just law in general).
Perhaps their testimony could be taken into account for dismissing evidence, but thy themselves are not tasked with the role of dismissing it. Only to give expert testimony.
@BrandonSchittone
Totally agree. The flaw 'cheat-sheet' before was a big one for me too. It really nailed down some of that vocab.
@jrm98
Gotta wonder which is worse though.
Over confidence errors, or not enough confidence.
Live in Okinawa and am planning on June International exam.
I doubt anyone will live near me, but it's cool to meet virtually.
@LawyeRell Occasionally. I recommend checking if your browser needs an update. This will happen on other sites if chrome or something is out of date.
@LauraBolivar
What got me to get B was that D specifies the conditions in which the killer is applied normally (which we don't know anyway, but it says if true, so...). Still, it doesn't attack the biggest reason for the conclusion. The breakdown.
It is tricky because it talks about the variety of testing situations, but we don't know those, and the premise discusses the variety of soil within context of breakdown of chemicals.
So, B sat stronger to me as it discussed this point.
I think this is also a question that shows the importance in understanding your conclusion.
Conclusion here states why LONG TERM training is unwarranted.
Answer should address Long Term (directly... I think
@woffutt In shakespear's time, actors were not actually given a full script. That being said, the first line of both choices can't be assumed.
Actors: Can we say they own or don't own the play? (No. We can only say they receive their parts for sure.)
Spectator: Can we say they own or don't own the play? (No. We all know people who have seen Harry Potter, but not read a single word of the book.)
So, we have to go on the second statement and fact.
Can a spectator replicate one characters lines perfectly? (or speech?) Maybe. Like Prozd on Peter Pan. BUT maybe not.
How about actors: Well, almost most definitely (still an assumption, but not a stretch) they know their own part quite well. Do they know the others? Maybe, but maybe not. BUT they know at least their own.
So, if you are between C and D. Considering the first line is an assumption on both (And if you are a literature historian, not even that), then the second line would b the determining spot. (At least this was how I took it.)
Another where I had to re-read the answers. A seemed very obvious after that.
Reading CAREFULLY was really required.
Less Car thieves now (in my mind, this was a check (something in stimulus addressed: Great)).
Next part, I had to make an example in my head to understand it.
Tom steals a car 5 years ago, BUT he leaves it literally down the street (must have driven like 10 secs). So, owner didn't notice, did or didn't call cops until the morning maybe, but Tom was long gone.
BUT NOW, Tom stole the car, and drove it until the morning. The owner comes out, sees car missing, calls cops. Tom could be caught. Tom could be charged. Tom could be convicted.
In my mind. BAM! Check for the other part of the stimulus.
Unfortunately, this took 1:25 over for 3:07. But considering time saved on easier questions... maybe... plus just a right answer in general, I'm happy. Better to know a correct answer on one question than guess on 3 others.
Time to watch the video now.
@TMoney
D was the only one he crossed out. The rest he circled. In other words, A, B, C, and E are explanations. And D is not. His answer was D. You are correct, but he didn't mis-speak on anything. His answer was also D.
@KaylenRodriguez
Still is fairly confusing. 😭
Good luck on the studies!