I could easily convince myself that any of these are correct... by the purpose is to present a new hypothesis using a new method.

A. Wrong. For this, we have to look at the passage type. A phen-hypothesis passage doesn't have the primary purpose of comparing or differentiating things.

B. Wrong. Again on passage type of phen-hypo, it's presenting a new hypothesis, not exposing anything

C. Wrong. Doesn't even talk about how historical events have unfolded

D. Correct. I hate this answer but I guess it's true. Revisionary approach = new hypothesis, explaining the basis = how we got to the new hypothesis (taphonomy)

E. Wrong. It's not really explaining how the old theory has been replaced. In fact it seems to be introducing the new theory, suggesting that the old theory hasn't been replaced yet.

Discovery of fossils: most recent fossils discovered in 1856, even older fossils were discovered after that. Because the recent fossils were similar to us, anthropologies assumed that the older ones were too.

I choice C because I was missing the second half of this. C covers the discovering something older aspect but doesn't include the assumption that the passage's anthropologists make that there must be significant similarities between prehistoric and modern groups (first paintings and late paintings)

How did the researchers mentioned in the last paragraph analyze the markings on the fossils? That animals bit them first and then they were marked by human tools

A. Wrong. Nothing about skill level in butchering animals

B. Wrong. Nothing about speed or another group of hominids

C. Wrong. Again nothing about speed

D. Correct. Hominids used their tools on animals that had already been killed by their predators

E. Wrong. Nothing about large animals

What would the author likely suggest the anthropologists to do? Consider more fully the sophistication and environment of modern societies vs prehistoric societies.

A. Wrong. Taphonomy is the study of bones. While this helps clarify other parts of the why the author thinks the early anthropologists were wrong, the critique that is cited ('final sentence of the first paragraph') isn't talking about how they didn't examine bones properly, its about how they didn't sufficiently compare lifestyles across societies through out several years.

B. Wrong. The word 'among' suggests looking at the similarities of lifestyles present at the same time

C. Correct. Comparing modern with prehistoric societies

D. Wrong. Previous century wouldn't be that different so there wouldn't be that much to compare

E. Wrong. Author doesn't critique or suggest anything about industrialization

@JoseBrown Its the word 'among' thats the problem. That word suggests the comparison is among groups present together rather than groups across several centuries

Okay heres the lawgic

1. Credit -> 24hrs & no replacement copy

2. Temporary nondelivery -> requested 3 days before

3. Cancel -> beforehand and in writing

A. Wrong. Wants to cancel but didn't do so beforehand or in writing so the denial is justified

B. Wrong. Wants credit, calls within 24hrs but we don't know if there is a replacement copy available so we can't in confidence give credit so the denial is justified

C. Correct. Wanted temporary nondelivery and called more than 3 days before. She fulfilled the requirements but they didn't follow the request so she gets credit

D. Wrong. Wants to cancel but didn't do it in writing so the denial is justified

E. Wrong. Wants credit but called after 24hrs and we don't know about a replacement copy so the denial is justified

C is correct because the second paragraph brings up monogamous families and immediately after asks if this is a right or wrong hypothesis. The author is saying that the psychologists who argue this point use a questionable explanation.

E is wrong because the psychologists didn't bring this point up. They said that altruistic behavior occurred because they were caring about the future of their genes, not necessarily themselves. This argument is something that the author of B themselves brings up.

Lesson: beware of answer choices that are too broad or too narrow.

Answer choice D is so appealing because the rest of it besides "evolutionary theory in general". Even if you don't pick up on the evolutionary theory vs. evolutionary psychology difference, the word "general" can also stand as a red flag. Passage B is specifically talking about explaining altruistic behaviors so a whole theory in general is too broad of a group for the ac to assume that the author is being skeptical off. Though B isn't really what I would note as the perfect answer, I think its the least bad answer.

A. Wrong because this is sort of the opposite of what the author is saying. Altruistic behavior doesn't diminish reproductive success. Passage A is saying that a desire for reproductive success motivates altruistic behavior.

B. Wrong because there's nothing about new evidence. My brain totally skipped past this but the main point is based on evolutionary psychology that has been long standing, not on some new evidence.

C. Wrong because A is using the kin-based groups point to support the hypothesis about altruistic behavior to preserve genes.

D. Wrong because A doesn't have critics AND because it's only talking about altruistic behavior, not most significant types of human behavior (sub group vs whole group)

E. Correct but worded so weirdly. The altruistic behavior may be from the psychological states/experiences of identifying and empathy with familiy. True from passage A.

/constant awareness -> clouded mind

constant awareness -> tainted outlook

In order to figure out the relationship between these two groups of people, there must be a way to link them: contrapositives

/Clouded mind -> constant awareness -> tainted outlook

So, /clouded mind -> tainted outlook

OR

/tainted outlook -> /constant awareness -> clouded mind

So, /tainted outlook -> clouded mind

A. Wrong, we don't know anything about priorities and how they impact a persons awareness

B. Wrong. There could be one person with a tainted outlook and one person with with a clouded mind. They aren't mutually exclusive

C. Wrong (but I was tricked). Based on my personal understanding of what it means to have a tainted outlook, I could describe that as self-deception. But the author didn't imply as such so we can assume that.

D. Correct based on the second contrapositive: /tainted outlook -> /constant awareness -> clouded mind

E. Wrong. This ac gives a preference between the two options but the author doesn't say which is better or worse, just that they are two options.

Flaw: S takes what R is saying as "having diversity of experience is enough to become a politican" and that is the argument she criticizes. But R made the argument of "having diversity should be a required part of being a politician" indicating that it is one of possibly many other required things that all together make someone qualified to be a politician. So the flaw is that S isn't actually responding to what R said.

A. Wrong because S isn't opposing R's argument, she completely misunderstood what R said so she can't actually oppose what R said.

B. Wrong. S isn't saying that experience isn't beneficial for politics, she's saying that experience isn't enough to be worth of public trust. (1) Says nothing about it being beneficial or not. (2) S is talking about public trust, not politicians

C. Correct. Generally, she responds in-aptly to what Ruth is saying. Beyond this I'm not fully understanding why this is correct

D. Wrong. Personal versus profession experience isn't necessarily part of the conversation.

E. Wrong, similar to A. S isn't saying what is or isn't important, she's saying that something isn't enough by itself to qualify one for something else

Unless:

A unless B

If not B, then A

or in this case

A unless not

If B, then A

No premodern general theory of art achieves its purposes (A) unless music is not art (B)

If music art, then no premodern general theory of art achieves it's purposes because none of them explained aesthetic features of music.

The way I was so confident I got it right...

Got this wrong because I was just focusing on the structure of the argument and not the actual flaw. But fun fact, you need to actually find the flaw in order to match the flaw lol

Flaw: the food is enough but isn't necessarily "good", Sylvia is missing that modification and so is D

A. Wrong. This is actually a valid argument so it doesn't have the modification flaw in it.

B. Wrong. There is a missing "sweet" in George's corn but that's not the same missing modification as in the argument

C. Wrong. Actually a valid argument. I did this because I think my brain forgot that this is a flaw question and just thought this matched the structure closest

D. Correct. The meat stock is missing the modification of being "well-seasoned"

E. Wrong. Doesn't follow the structure at all nor does it have the flaw

Connection: increased size -> specific roles -> more production -> lower costs to drive out small businesses -> monopoly with high prices

A. Wrong because 'regions' are not part of the connection the author makes

B. Wrong because salary are not part of the connection the author makes

C. Wrong because this is adding in a different circumstance where there are multiple companies. Having this additional circumstance is not part of the connection the author makes

D. Wrong because so what. If the apples industry and the orange industry achieve increasing returns at a different point, that doesn't negate anything in the connection the author is making. It still stands for apples as their own industry and oranges as their own industry.

E. Correct. The author makes a connection that if there are more specialized workers, it will lower costs. But if E is true and the training costs off set any costs that are saved, then it won't actually lead to a monopoly. This interrupts the causal connection.

A. Wrong because the author isn't really resolving something that is unclear in the Invisible Hand theory

B. wrong. This is what is going on in the paragraph above but isn't why the author brings up railroads

C. Wrong (but very sneaky). I think what is most wrong about this is the word "increasing". The author doesn't say anything about railroads becoming more popular. They're just saying that the railroad industry is present and is best examined through the pin factory theory

D. Correct. The rest of the passage is about why the invisible hand theory is so prevalent. The author then says "but what about railroads?". The railroad industry doesn't fit in the invisible hand theory and thus shows it's weaknesses

E. Wrong. Author is not discussing competition within transportation industries

Main point: the pin factory theory was de-emphasized because it was too difficult to represent clearly

A. Wrong because the author isn't critiquing the theory

B. Correct because this paragraph is explaining why the pin factory theory is difficult to represent (model)

C. Wrong because the paragraph is talking more of the difficulties about the pin factory theory, not what intuitions are supporting it.

D. Wrong because this particular paragraph is focused specifically on pin factory, even though diminishing returns is mentioned at the end. Not really a comparison for the main point though

E. Wrong, similar to A. The author isn't refuting anything

Most support? = Somewhere between explicitly stated and strongly implied. That means it doesn't have to absolutely be true but just has the most support compared to other answer choices.

A. Wrong because the passage doesn't state anything about where or how often this particular ballad was performed.

B. Wrong because the passage doesn't discuss what kinds of corridos have or have not survived.

C. Correct (except it got me). I'm usually cautious of any "all, every, always" type words because they tend to be too extreme but I guess not in this case. It's not too extreme because its talking of a subset of corridos, only the complete ones. What does it take to be complete? It must include a despedida. So of those that include a despedida, they have some lines in common. Of course that's true. If they have a despedida, the first and third line will be the same.

D. Wrong (it got me). We know from the last paragraph that the despedida is not completely the same, it's only the first and third sentence that is the same but the rest varies. So this can't be true.

E. Wrong because there is not support for who wrote the corridos.

Lesson I learned: pay attention lol (and consider if it's talking about the whole group or if it is modified in some way to make it into a sub group.

A. Wrong because a brochure would likely have more causal language for tourists. This passage seems very academic. When I think of brochures, I think of bullet points of generalized information, not in depth passages.

B. Wrong because the passage didn't talk at all about how the ballad influenced music in Spain. It only mentioned Spain as the origin of the ballad

C. Wrong because editorial's are opinion pieces. I've seen this ac come up in other questions like this. Just remember editorial = opinion. This passage is historical fact, not opinion so it can't really be an editorial

D. Wrong because the main point of the passage is about how the ballads bring together communities, not about the lives of the people

E. Correct. The passage seems pretty academic so it fits that it would be in a book. The main point is about a song form. And Mexico is in North America. Despite not having clear evidence that there are other song forms in the book, this answer is the only that can be most strongly implied compared to the others

The government makes 3 claims

1. the power plant is safe

2. the nuclear industry needs limited liability just incase of bankruptcy

3. industry is only at risk if there is a claim from injury, and claims can only be made if an injury. occurs from a nuclear accident

So, while the government says it's safe, they are taking precautions to protect the industry from anyone who has an 'unsafe' experience with the industry

A. Wrong. The claim that is it safe isn't necessarily wrong, it may still be safe but their taking precautions anyways

B Correct. Just between points 1 and 2, there is extreme inconsistency. 1 says it's safe but 2 and 3 say it may not be

C.Wrong. We don't know what the government's reasoning was. It could be actually to protect the industry or there could be some other reasoning

D. Wrong. The government was actively trying to limit liability in order to protect the industry because it does pose a threat. But to JY's point, we only know about what the government is claiming, not what in reality poses a threat to the industry.

E.Wrong. There are many other conceivable threats of a nuclear accident, but again we only know about what the government is claiming, not what in reality is a threat.

Conclusion: manufacturers should not overstate the dangers of their products

Why? Because they do it for the wrong reason

Flaw: Just because they do it to protect themselves doesn't mean they shouldn't have warnings, it would still protect the child even if that was not the intended main purpose

A. Wrong. There isn't a necessary condition for reducing injuries, reducing injuries is the necessary condition for putting warnings on products. The stimulus isn't saying that it reducing injuries is enough reasoning to conclude that there needs to be a warning, it's saying that it is necessary to put warnings in order to reduce injuries

B. Wrong. It may be true that the argument didn't discuss this but that is not why the 'warnings only for liability -> /overstate dangers' premise and conclusion is wrong.

C. Wrong. We don't have any information on the sample size so we can't make judgements about it.

D. Wrong. This is not an assumption that is made. It actually says the opposite, that warning labels should overstate danger if doing so will reduce injuries.

E. Correct. An action (putting a warning on a product) has an effect (keeping kids safe) only if it was performed in order to ring about that effect. The stimulus is saying that warnings will only keep kids safe if the reason for overstating the warning is to keep the kids safe. Since manufacturers had other reasoning, then the warnings won't keep the kids safe. Obviously flawed, the warnings can still keep kids safe even if that was not the main intent of putting the warnings on

A. Wrong because it doesn't explain why people are getting infections. Ineffective medication doesn't equal more infections

B. Wrong. Yes life spans have increased but this doesn't explain why people are still getting infected

C. Wrong. It doesn't explain the discrepancy between health improving and the rate of infection increasing, it just validates that people get infections

D. Wrong. The stimulus doesn't talk about population increase, it talks about life span. Life span can increase with the population staying the same or even decreasing, they aren't the same thing. The explanation, then, doesn't actually explain the discrepancy

E. Correct. The new treatments that cure fatal diseases, the thing that is increasing life span is the very same thing that makes people more susceptible to infection. That bridges the gap between a healthier people who live longer and why those same people are getting more infections.

A. Wrong because we don't know about "all of the trucks", we only know about the trucks purchased 3 years ago and the diesel trucks, like JY said, they could've sold a toy truck too lol

B. Wrong because again, we only know that they purchased the new trucks 3 years ago, maybe the purchased some new trucks too, we just don't know.

C. Wrong because again, we don't know about their purchasing beyond what happened 3 years ago, maybe they haven't bought any more, maybe they've purchased 180 trucks since then, we don't know so it's not an assumption that needs to be made

D. Correct! Our conclusion here by the auditor says that none of the 20 trucks were diesel. We know that last year, all the diesel trucks were sold. But we don't know how many were sold two and three years ago. In order for it to be true that none of the 20 trucks were diesel, we need to assume that none of them have been sold yet. If they have been, we have no idea if they are diesel or not.

E. Wrong because again, we don't know what else the company owns, we only know about these 20 trucks and the diesel trucks

For a successful economy -> you must have a flourishing scientific community -> which requires many young people to be excited & become scientists -> which requires good communication between scientists and the public

A. Wrong because it goes backwards. It says that if good communication happens, then young people will be excited. Good communication is required for the excitement to occur but there may be other requirements too, it's not sufficient by itself to make young people excited.

B. Wrong because of the word 'many' in the stimulus. Many just means 2+. This ac is relying on the amount of young people but we don't have an amount, we just know it's more than 1

C. Correct because it connects the dots between the causal chain. Successful economy -> requires good communication. Think of the sufficient and necessay circles. Each level of that causal chain is another bigger circle. Good communication encloses all of the other steps which means that if there is a successful economy (smallest circle) then it also has to be true that there was good communication (largest circle)

D. Wrong because 'many' does not equal 'most'

E. Wrong because we aren't talking about scientific endeavors, we're talking about a scientific community. We don't know what is required for scientific endeavors.

Flaw: it makes a jump between the premise of friends knowing what one is thinking all the way to a hypothesis that telepathy is real. There are so many alternative explanations that are more reasonable for why friends know what each other are thinking.

A. Wrong because we don't really know the sample size so we can't make a judgement on whether it was too small or not.

B. Correct because it discusses how Taylor doesn't address any other possible hypothesis for the phenomenon

C. Wrong because it's not appealing to emotion in order to persuade the reader of the conclusion

D. Wrong because the stimulus doesn't even bring up strangers

E. Wrong. This says that a person could only believe the premise (friends know what each other are thinking) if they believe the conclusion first (that telepathy is possible). That is not what the stimulus is saying, it's saying the opposite in fact

Flaw: the magazine is talking about companies that don't already have the equipment but the survey is talking about companies that do have the equipment already. So the author is comparing two different groups and conflating them to be the same and thus have the same result of thinking the equipment is worth the cost. Maybe the price just went up so for the companies that already had the equipment before the price hike, it was worth it to them at the lower price but now that the price went up, it's not worth it to the people who don't already have it (just an example of why).

A. Doesn't discuss the flaw in the groups that are compared

B. sufficient condition to justify the cost: it being worth the cost. Is it being worth the cost necessary to justify the cost? Maybe, the stimulus doesn't reference this. Again, the flaw is about the group itself

C. The author isn't rejecting it because of inadequate arguments, he's comparing two groups that can't be compared

D. Correct! The author is using a sample that is not representative of the sample the author is making a conclusion about, thus the conclusion is flawed.

E. I don't think the author is necessarily confusing the cost and the value. There is a connection between the price of the equipment and it being or not being worth the cost but the author isn't confusing it or using these in an incorrect order.