Ugh, common problem of mine is losing track of the VIEW relevant to the question. As I go through PoE, sometimes I mix-up who's VIEW I am answering the question about, and end crossing it the correct AC because I forgot which view I was supposed to be thinking about.

If I hadnt made this error AGAIN, I would have been apparently inferred that Bettelheim thinks children can "shed undesirable qualities" which is just a weird paraphrase of "Bettelheim think its possible for kids to mature" which is kinda like a Must be true answer in LR, because Bettelheim talks about how the kids get trained by the story of hansel in gretel to mature.

If bettelheim thinks kids can mature, it MUST BE TRUE, you can INFER, that he must think kids can shed bad traits, AKA maturing.

I was so paranoid I had missing some sort of paraphrased support for "social factors" hindering acceptance that I took way too long on this question.

Damn, A straight up punishes you for skimming the answer, because it specifices a SINGLE "CENTER" it is clearly wrong. That word alone invalidates this answer.

@afk I got this wrong too just like you, and now im realizing that the menton of the OBMs 30% being allowed by gov regs is actually inferrable from the context of the entire passage.

So it starts with mentioning tight regulations, close oversight, and controlled monitored discharges in para 1.

Then when they talk specifically about the OBMs they use the language "normally used", "typical difference", and "typically 30 percent". This language, within the greater context of the passage can, upon retrospect for me, be inferred to support the statement that Gov regs allow for 30% mineral oil.

Consider if it wasn't, the passage wouldn't make any sense anymore. The passage is clearly about REGULATED compositions and procedures, but if one of the big points it mentions is NOT actually allowed by government regulations (30% mineral oil) and is yet NORMAL and TYPICAL, then the passage falls apart.

TLDR;

Passage is clearly a discussion about government regulated compositions and procedures. The final paragraph is clearly NOT saying that "normally" and "typically" these regulations are violated with 30% mineral oil. That doesnt make any sense. It's supported but you can only see that in the greater context of the passage, not just the paragraph in isolation.

This is a damn tricky question, but looking back, I agree that D is definitely supported.

@BOBLOBLAW I would instead write something like "Missed distinguishing detail" maybe

@JonathanCesari What do you mean by course work? what course work?

Got baited by E) which if you read carefully doesn't make sense. Why would anyone think Mackay infers that the POST-CRASH tulip prices were irrational? If anything, you would want to make the case Mackay could have infered the PRE-CRASH prices were irrational because they were speculative.

Also a quick ctrl-f search for "rational" would show you the topic of rationality/irrationaly is only mentioned once at the end by Garber, therefore its also an unlikely answer in this regard as well.

All in all, this bait could be avoided with more careful comprehension of what it is saying, your brain just autocorrects sit to thinking its talking about irrational speculative prices, but its not, its talking about irrational post-crash prices which has nothing to do with anything.

@jlewis2618417 Yeah goddamn, this was a tricky one. Gotta have a laser focus on subtle constrasting language. I think that's what this entire passage is more or less testing is ability to track multiple views and detect very subtle contrasts in their view through understated language.

Why is the target time for this question like 3 minutes? Is that a bug?

Time sink question that hopes to make you hesistate and overanayze dense, incorrect ACs

@Gregmjr hmmm this sounds like it could be a promising strategy to me, I might try to utilize this!

@jacobseeley861 I like this, struggled with this question in particular. Very clean intuitive diagram!

I predicted the AC for this one, but the wording of the correct AC threw me off. It sounded sort of weakly worded; indirect. "Diverting attention", "focusing on writer's actions". It sounded kind of couched to me, and not at all how I expected it to be worded, but I guess it should have been clear from the second part of the correct AC.

@amitavkamani835 yeah Jesus Christ I feel so dumb, I did the same thing despite clearly understanding the conclusion I needed to strengthen was AGAINST them hahaha

@jniuboston201 ow

Answer (A) is weak because it does not actually damage the argument. Even if (A) is assumed, the ad could still be considered ill conceived.

Let's say there's 3 possibilities:

No ad: very low sales

Competitor ad: slightly higher sales

Author's ad: the highest sales

Answer (A) only says "the conclusion is weak because maybe the sales would have been lower without the competitor's ad!"

So what? The author is saying that the ad is ill conceived and that his ad would have made sales even higher. The competitor's ad could merely boost sales a miniscule amount, and therefore still be ill conceived despite technically raising sales vs having no ad at all.

Answer (B) is muuuuch stronger. It's pointing out critical weakness in the argument that has not considered any other factors as to why sales may be lower. Maybe there was huge economic recession. The author makes no attempt to narrow down the causes.

I think this is a pretty tricky level 3 question, it clouds the stimulus with the private opinion of the director, and that of the critics, the plurality of opinions, what the resale price of the art truly reflects, what caused the rise in resale price, the potential value of the new aquisitions being more valuable artistically then the pieces sold.

I think the first step here is to focus on the conclusion, which locks the topic to prices, meaning you can disregard a lot of noise, but then the trick with the prices is, you more readily expect a simple answer about the resale price not neccsarily being reflective of the artistic value of pieces.

When you don't see anything that looks like that, you then start to desperately justify trap ACs

Instead, the correct AC camoflouges a very similar, but adjacent price assumption the stimulus makes, that the jump in resale price itself is a distinct assumption.

@kellytello554 I disagree, I think A is a trap answer hinting at the critics being more numerous then the lone director. You're adding details that are not in the stimulus about the resale of the art works. The stimulus never specifies a quantity of people in relation to the resale. But they do specify there is more then one critic with opposing views from the single director. Therefore, answer A is more likely referring to the critics than buyers.

I failed this because I didn’t comprehend A) as a paraphrase of “circular logic” and D) as a convoluted way of saying “failing to consider other other possibilities that are also without proof against”

I think the biggest trap in this question is that, at least it seems to me, there is an intermediate conclusion WITHIN the main conclusion! The premises actually directly support this intermediate, and then the intermediate directly supports the main conclusion wrapped around it.

@silvasophy1418 this was my first stumble, my second was not identifying the intermediate conclusion,

@memhas i guess we can just give chatgpt the job then

From my understanding D) is more of an inference, the question stems is asking for how the argument part is used in the argument, NOT what inferences can be made about the view of the author. D may be true, but it is not what the author uses statement for in his argument functionally. Think about it, sure it may happen to illustrate what he think sis really important, but IN THE ARGUMENT it is functionally used to counter the concession in the first sentence, to override it.

I got confused by 2 things:

1) the paraphrasing of the correct answer choice referring to seabirds and fish as "larger animals", and assumed that his phrasing meant ALL larger animals, which it doesn't. Tricky

2) I confused the argument in part as being an "example" which it isn really from my understanding now.

Was groggy on this drill and messed up despite getting it right in the past. Realized stumbled on the conclusion and how the selected statement related to it. The conclusion specifies "this reason", which sets out that the concusion is taregeting this reasoning that both views of the administrators AND teachers use to justify their reasoning. The author clearly thinks that computers won't reduce teacher staffing,but does not actually agree with the REASONING of either party, and that is what the conclusion concernsis the reasoning, not the two opposing view. I wasn't firing on all cylinders and glossed over this pivotal keyword, getting sucked into the contention between the two opposing views and ascribing them to the conclusion, which does not actually concern them, only the shared reasoning/premise both parties employ. I think that also threw me, kept overthinking how both opposing views utilize the same premise and it clogged my brain up, making miss that the main conclusion of the stimulus was not actually about the opposing views at all, it was actually about a third view, of the author, that both parties reasoning is mistaken.