I think even though I got this one wrong, in hindsight eliminating AC probably could have given you the correct answer.

I feel B, D, E all just a bit too strongly worded and we should have something that is more of possiblity.

Then for A, I feel like we really can't infer much about the compass readings and have no indication that they would be stronger or weaker at peaks, let along that large fluctuations would influence them.

Did anyone have a shallow dive that helped solve this problem faster/ eliminate answers quicker?

@IanWaldoch Good point but you have to see this in a more logic perspective. When we negate good, all we are saying that something is either good or its not good so neutral or meh is in that category of not good because ... its not good!

Its good to be skeptical on this stuff cause it can definitely come up in other ways though.

@julia.gershberg Your diagram is correct, but were saying that if these things happen they lead to bad food, its not necessary for them to happen to get bad food and thus its not ultimately caused poor soil and bad farming practices.

Maybe you left it in the sun too long or you cooked it wrong. So E is too strong.

Also, When is sufficient condition indicator so E says:

bad food ->poor soil -> poor farming.

Does anyone have shallow dive that helped them eliminate some answers quicker here?

This is a tricky one because the answer almost seems like a trap: The most phrase, the fact that we had paragraphs mention the way common law can be used in cases of native american discernment.

@pedersonha278 I think so, I know this is late but in this case its more that they said many people which honestly just a synonym for some. But I think the bigger thing is, why do we need most, more than 50% of people to believe this? If it was 49% or 48% would that make that destroy the argument? Some is really the only one we can use a lot of the times because negating some is none, so its powerful if that is not true.

Any shallow dives that helped eliminate answers for people?

Anyone find any shallow dives that can help eliminate the AC here? I could eliminate A pretty quickly but any other ones?

@kaleighh.04 Hi! I wrote something very similar in my wrong answer entry as you with one additional note, which you might be saying. If the conclusion is that judges shouldn't mitigate on the basis of motive, that essentially means that you should choose the harsher punishment over a more lenient one. When you see that B makes a lot more sense as well, because that principle is very similar to this conclusion.

Sorry, really long answer coming here.

I thought this was just saying:

B(ET) -> B(UFO)

/E(UFO)

_________

/B(ET)

My thinking was they thought, this is to demonstrate the flaw and not lawgic, /E(UFO) = /B(UFO) mixing up a belief vs fact.

Thus they triggered the contrapositive incorrectly by saying

/E(UFO) = /B(UFO) = /B(ET)

But I messed up because this contrapositive doesn't say that the belief in ETs is false or that ETs don't exist, its that those who don't belief extraterrestrials.

So there was another step that had to be drawn to get to that conclusion and that is needed to get to the answers.

I had some trouble wrapping my head around D but its like this, and correct me if im wrong.

We basically a theory that IF A then B. And we want to know, why is it that if A then B? know thing that A is true or triggers, does not explain the gap or why A leads to B.

Imagine the lawyers who argued this said.

"If Ms. S had a reasonable expectations this column would cause damage then she should pay?"

Then the judge says "Why?"

"Because... she had a reasonable expectation the column would cause damage..."

Thats a not a strong case.

Completely agree! I also think something that helped me a lot is framing everything into an argument which I saw JY do.

Example, if there was a complicated sentence that your uncertain of, I learned it’s not about what it means, it’s about how it fits into the paragraph and the passage.

This helped me stopped getting bogged down in details and also get a better low res summary

I understand that B is saying the data that does not align with the theory is being given more scrutiny, and thus will correct any errors in that data more than it would correct errors in the data that already benefits the theory. However, how do we know that conflicting data has errors and if corrected they would even favor the theory? The underlying assumption would be that jones theory is correct otherwise we would have no reason to believe this data would support it?

For C, my thinking was if researchers are pursuing lines of research they expect will favor the theory, then the data is likely going to favor it. So any inaccuracies when corrected would likely favor the theory if they were going in with this assumption that the data will favor the theory.

I was hesitant with A, just because it said the conclusion is "undesirable". Maybe im reading into it too much, but I feel that was a bit of a stretch because Sedley just says it was ridiculous to prohibit them.

@MilesHartung I think because the answer choice is A so you can find it quicker

Does this question have the relative to absolute flaw in it? When I first read it I thought, okay Jones has a unique set of qualifications that make her more qualified (bigger problem is I see they never say these make here more qualified, only that they have unique qualifications).

And then they say that makes her best qualified for the president, but thats just within the relative group of candidates. There could be other people more qualified in the relative group.

And to make this flaw go away, I would simply change the conclusion to, Jones, therefore, is the best qualified CANDIDATE or best qualified candidate to be president AMOUGST THE CANDIDATES.

Am I wrong?

I misread A and thought it said the two visions entail the unacceptability, as in individually not jointly.

Just taking a prep test is a good start!

I was struggling a lot with balancing my work and studying. I was having the same thoughts and it’s tough. I had to take a couple days for my self, reset, and just clear my head.

It’s easy to feel anxious and uncertain in this process, and that’s totally normal! I think you can definitely get the score you want and apply this cycle! first and foremost, give yourself a little grace, take care of yourself, and I promise this will pass!

I know that this is an easier passage, but this is the first passage where I actually got down to the target time! I have been trying for weeks to this!