@sliao2489 same!!!!

@HeathHughes I got this question wrong and was also confused by this. I even had to look up the definitions and this is what I found:

Adaptation of an Oath= changes the presentation, language, or physical setting of the oath so a person can take it. However, it keeps the core promises completely the same.

Modification of an Oath= actually changes what you are promising to do. It removes or replaces core requirements or legal duties because of a person's deeply held beliefs.

I got this wrong but after reading the explanation I understand now. When there is “many” in a statement, for example, “many people walk their dogs”. It’s also possible that “many people DO NOT walk their dogs”. Many = some. 

• Like in the stimulus, “many mass extinctions have NOT been followed by major meteor impacts”. It can also be true that “many mass extinctions have BEEN followed by major meteor impacts”. 

• This is why AC (B) is wrong, which is what I initially picked.

• It can be right both ways with “some” statements. Therefore, it’s NOT required that many mass extinctions follow major meteor impacts, we need something more strong like ALL extinctions are followed. Like AC (A).

@jli276 the stimulus doesn't have any conditional statements, so having that in mind makes it easier for me to eliminate AC A.

@JessicaEverhart same LOL, i thought the same thing that the papers were being physically shared among the scientists

@PowerUp_Tutoring it was a level 2 when I did it, it probably went up

@AsadAwawdeh this is why I eliminated it too! I noticed that "bacteria are extremely diverse" is not a conditional statement

I did not know this was a NA question and I was treating it differently :(

on a timed section I got this AC right in 51 seconds bc I understood it fairly quickly....but yet on some level 1-2 questions I'm confused asf.

@blueground yeah I agree it's far from being a level 2 question, it's confusing

He explains the wrong ACs so fast in the explanation video. For someone who knows this stuff that's cool but for someone who is struggling, it's being taught too fast lol.

@DanielleK Remember, it's not a Must Be True question. It's not asking what has to be true but rather what would most likely be useful to know.

I wish the video showed the negation of each AC because that's how I try to solve NA questions :(

I thought the first sentence was the conclusion which threw me off. Once you know that isn't the conclusion it makes sense why the correct AC is right.

@ksh9665264 same I got all right except the main point question and I hate science passages lol

The reason why I got many questions wrong at first was bc I didn't catch the author's opinion. Once I understood it I went back to redo the questions and I got them right. The author's opinion is key!!!

I got (C) wrong, because I thought it was too strong. I understand same answers won't be mentioned in the passage (apples, plums), but then again the author never said grapes were the only type of fruits to reduce the risk of premature heart disease. However, this is an IMPLIED question not a Must be True. This question is asking what the author will probably think or is likely to think, NOT what it knows for sure is true. The AC does not have to be proven to be true in the passage.

I didn't choose (E) because "new insights" caught me off guard. I thought it was too strong. But once I went back to review, it seemed like the only logical answer choice. On RC, "new insights" can mean a view that is different from the traditional view. It offers a NEW perspective relative to the existing scholarship, even if the author never writes "this is new".

oh wow I confused non-charitable to charitable for answer choice (B), which is why I immediately eliminated it. Once I did the question again I noticed the difference and chose that answer choice.

One of the reasons why (C) is wrong is because the question stem is asking how is the paragraph organized/structured NOT what ideas appear in the paragraph.

Ahh I got this wrong because I read the question stem too fast and thought we had to focus on both claims, not just the first one. I was confused on how to tie both claims to the conclusion. Once I read why the correct AC is (C)., it made sense when we are just focusing on the first claim.

@JR2003 in paragraph 2 it says ..."are often credited with having anticipated not just subsequent developments in the arts, but also the political and social disruptions and upheavals of the modern world that came into being during and after the war." But this is not the author's opinion, it's the perspective of other people (not relevant to stimulus)

oh wow, the reason I got this wrong is bc of the stimulus which says "according to the author". I was thinking that other people have thought that these artists give examples that they can predict social changes so that couldn't be the right answer choice. But we only care about the author's opinion, not others.

I got this wrong because I was so confused on how to negate B. I negated it wrong and thought it destroyed the argument lol....

@JR2003 okay so I looked it up and a counterexample = gives a similar case that makes the politician's reasoning look questionable.