when i do a LR section, the first 10 questions HAVE TO be done under 10 mins, that’s helped with timing

The "role models" are not referring to Marsalis, but rather to the traditional artists/ past masters. We know this because the passage says that contrastingly the record companies saw them as "brand names".

But the premise in the passage (evidence that ovens date back 250000 years) is implying that cooking has been around for a LONG time, that's why the author concludes by disputing the hypothesis that evolutionary change cannot occur because cooking is too recent.

My attempt to explain Q27:

Why C is not supported by passage:

- Throughout the passage, the author introduces these expert hypothetical solutions to resolve and fill the gray area of how copyright laws should be applied to digitalization. One of the solutions is to treat digitilization like redistributions under current law: as a crime. The author then lists out problems of this solution: 1. unclear about the scope of who gets penalized bc it becomes a long chain of redistribution and 2. unenforceable/ not feasible. Author then goes on to say it will be hard to find solution that satisfies both internet users and copyright holders. Now the AC describes a scenario in which the author comments on WHAT WILL HAPPEN when a solution is picked and the laws are revised. This does not align with the gist of the passage because the passage only explores proposed solutions about revisions. The author never states what will be the solution.

Why D is better supported than C:

- Although C can be argued that the author never comments on what would happen if digitalization were made easier, it can be REASONABLY inferred from the info in the passage. The author's rationale on why criminalization of digitalization would be hard to implement is because the sheer amount of redistribution. What enables this large amount of redistribution? The ease of the process and the no. of internet users. C is BETTER ALIGNED with the info in the passage because the author establishes a correlation between the amount of redistribution and the ease of the process, whereas the author never talks about what is going to happen like C requires them to do.

One of the worst passages I've ever read, timed i got 1/6 lmao cause i just blanked out but 5/6 in BR

I HATE THIS PASSAGE WTFFFFF

.

I know my reply is a little late but it might be helpful for others.

Stimuli:

Clarrisa says that observation must be stated in quantitative terms FIRST and seriously considered SECOND.

Whilst Myungsook says that observations must be seriously considered/ explored FIRST and then stated in quantitative terms SECOND/LAST.

Thus, they are disagreeing over the order of steps of an observation.

Answer choices:

C deals with whether there is a subset ( / state precisely in quantitative terms) out of the superset (all observations)

C is irrelevant in that both Clarissa and Myungsook don't discuss the existence of this subset

D asserts that careful consideration must come FIRST before stating in quantitative terms.

D is right in that Clarissa and Myungsook talks about THE STEPS of an observation

What disqualifies the conclusion as a hypothesis? #question

No, we don't know for certain that understanding general relativity guarantees whether you can explore space. Understanding general relativity is necessary for exploring space but exploring space is not necessary for understanding general relativity.

Remember the Sufficiency → Necessary structure

Exploring space → Understanding general relativity

We cant just flip this into Understanding general relativity → Exploring space

You're confusing sufficiency and necessary conditions