Was excited about getting 5/5 but then realized my difficulty only went up to a 3 haha

What's crazy is I know so much about this topic that I nearly convinced myself I was getting tricked, so I decided to go over how I reached the right answer anyway.

A - no, we are not talking about expense

B - maybe! this would be my answer irl because I understand the implications. but i wonder if they are assumptions that can be made from this stimulus. the amount of time noted (25 years) makes me think: yes! The fact that that piece of information was included is a clue that this could be the right answer.

C - cool, but no, irrelevant, I would sure hope the sunscreen was being created by people who know what they're talking about, but maybe they're just trying to get money out of us.

D - no, those people would probably be getting less rates of skin cancer and they're not even using the sunscreen. Irrelevant!

E - this is what almost tripped me up, but just because they believe they are more susceptible to skin cancer doesnt mean they are, plus even if they were, that would indicate that the sunscreen still isn't working! Even if the language was fixed, that would strengthen the argument, not weaken it!

Therefore, B is the best choice as it is relevant to the information sets and doesn't attempt to strengthen the conclusion.

Got this right but went 1:03 over oh brotherrrr

@r.wang1

Yeah, I sort of imagined that one group went into a room and received the magnet "treatment" and the others went into a room and just sat there.

Plus, A is more focused on the results of those who did receive treatment than those who didn't. And since we're being told that the answer is true (and therefore the patient's know they're receiving treatment), the rest of the statement leads us to flag the potential flaw in the respondent's reports and therefore a flaw or counter to the experiment and the physician's hypothesis.

@AlenaKane Thank God for your comment because I was like "wow I am just really not getting this one!" and chalked it up to it being a math question. If I had read it correctly the first time, I would have gotten it right because I was able to pick out the one AC that was definitely incorrect, but then spent the rest of my time and BR time trying to pick what I thought was most correct, smh.

Upon my initial reading, I actually had a hard time seeing a discrepancy at all, so the wrong answers became more glaring and the right answer seemed... unneccessary? It actually FORCED me to POE something I might have otherwise been able to hunt for. For this question, I outlined what the ACs were stating, THEN went back to confirm if they resolved or obfuscated the answers. Here's how I processed it in my blind notes:

2 points to compare: number of auto thefts decline and thiefs are more likely to be convicted... There is no discrepancy here?

A - Fewer thieves, but thieves are more likely to commit to the bit

Yes, this addresses both rates of change. Those that go through with it are more likely to be caught.

B - Car alarms are more common, people less likely to notice

No, this would make people less likely to be caught if no one is noticing in the first place

C - Home burglaries increase, less money to police investigations

No, this would make investigations less likely to find/convict the thief if they have less time/resource to contribute

D - increase market for parts, vehicles disassembled quickly

No, this would make it more difficult to find the thieves as the act is done quickly and the evidence (parts) are spread everywhere quickly

E - increase in adolescent theives, less jailtime for young thieves

No, this is irrelevant because it doesn't talk about conviction rates, only the sentences that happen after the adolescent is convicted

@xyzana honestly no, as long as I can rationalize why the other answers are wrong in my BR (which I do even if I got the question correct immediately), I don't watch the vids.

Especially if the content is all about diagramming because if I was taking the actual exam and I had the choice of getting the answer right and moving on and getting out a pencil and paper to double check myself, I'd rather just do the first.

But maybe I'll flop later-- we'll see!

@Isabella! It "rules it out," therefore it is not a necessary condition. It's basically just extra information to disguise the true answer.

Sort of like if it had said something silly like "the current leader of the administration is bald, but even a bald adminstrator can be successful if he protects individual liberties." From that statement, you gain new information, but also have it almost immediately reduced to not really mattering.

But if you misread the stimulus, you might think that the bald administrator couldn't be successful, or that only a bald administrator could be successful. This is how you might fall into a trap answer.

@ryumi oh man, been there. But great job getting all your answers right after you went back for your real first attempt!

Just a reminder that these drills are scaled to challenge us based on our previous drill successes. So most of us are probably getting different questions/levels of questions.

If you want to discuss the answers on a specific question [within these drilling parts of the curriculum] , it's best to open that question's discussion panel to find answers, since people in this general board may not have encountered them.

Here's my notes from the BR, including corrections that I made to my reasoning following the rest of the lesson. Hopefully this helps anyone else who might have also had trouble figuring out what was supported and what was merely consistent.

A. Sam states that humans should let nature take its course. Meli argues that "we" must do what we can to ensure the survival of the bighorn. This sounds like they both believe in different approaches re: human intervention.

Support — AntiSupport

B. Sam seems to believe that the preservation of the bighorn is not necessary, but is hopeful that it will happen. This is merely consistent with the idea in B. Meli would agree with this point, however, we don't have matching degrees of support.

Consistent — Support Consistent

This is not supported, as I previously imagined, because the statement is too broad. It's possible that Meli wouldn't feel this way about other species. We have to remember that we are talking about the animals in the stimulus: mountain lions and bighorn sheep.

C. Irrelevant. We are not discussing the ease in which we can ensure species preservation.

Merely Consistent

D. Irrelevant. Neither party states that the mountain lion will be driven to extinction.

Merely Consistent

E. This claim is consistent with Meli's view, but not supported by it. It is anti-supported by Sam's position, as Sam has hope that the population will survive even without limiting the mountain lion population.

AntiSupport Consistent — Consistent

Sam's position is not anti-supported because it is unknown if what Sam believes is that the sheep will survive or not. Because belief = knowledge, and we do not know what Sam believes beyond their hopes, this position is merely consistent with.

I've started calling discrepancies "the anomaly" because that makes it stick out more in my brain. Here's my reasoning for the answers:

Passage states that:

• 1955 analysis found cobalt in Italian [European] painting

• cobalt was not used in Europe before 1804

• HOWEVER, 2009 analysis found cobalt, but also suggested that the painting could be from pre-1804

Anomaly: How could the painting be from before 1804 if it also included cobalt that couldn't have been used before 1804?

A - Yes, this accounts for how the original work could have been produced before 1804, but the topmost layer (that which contains cobalt) could have been added after 1804.

B - no, the amount of cobalt doesnt matter

C - no, the amount of samples doesn't matter

D - no, this does not absolve the anomaly because it only agrees that the painting is older than 1804

E - no, this does not absolve the anomaly because it only agrees that cobalt was still used post-1804, even if it was rare.

A - yes, this is a broad generalization that NO birds descended from ANY dinosaur

B - no, they provide evidence

C - no, no personal attacks

D - no, they're arguing that birds didn't descend from dinosaurs. maybe they do believe that all dinosaurs descended from birds.

E - no, even if they came from a common ancestor, they are arguing that we shouldn't believe that there are any birds that descended from dinosaurs.

I'll just add how I chose my answer (C) for this question, in case it helps anybody:

A. There is no evidence in the stimulus to support that storytellers are getting their information (stories), borrowing, or even communicating with the other cultures. Storytellers are not the focus of the stimulus.

B. Although the narrative may be a universal aspect of human culture, there is nothing to support that storytellers know this to be true. Storytellers are, again, not the focus of the stimulus.

D. There is nothing in the stimulus that talks about the importance of these stories, even if it does mention the widely separated epochs.

E. There is nothing in the stimulus that talks about cultural understandings nor the motives of storytellers. We are mostly talking about the content stories themselves, not the motivations of the storytellers.

----------

C is most supportive (and therefore correct) because it regards the stories as the key informaton in the stimulus.