Not seeing how A is correct despite looking at the lightbulb of it.

It never says anything about additional benefits. Using an outside lawyer. How is this a benefit?

@businessgoose I also have had the same issue, and I have also thought the RC is harder on the real test than the PTSs, they seem longer and more abstract - harder to identify structure.

I wasn''t sure if this is cope either but truthfully I dont think so. Largely I think its anxiety spiking when the real test pressure is on. It also doesn't help we have to wait three weeks to get the scores.

Certainly a weak answer choice

I believe they only care about the highest score, as that's what affects their median.

B is wrogn because its not addressing that, even if one is a volunteer, they may have made that decision under dures. Therefore it wasnt a free choice to be a volunteer.

I thought this was a tough question! however with negating A the answer is clear

Possessing info about the consequences of the choices one makes ensures that ones choices are free. this destorys the whole conclusion of the author, while B never addresses this.

stim: psychologist defines intelligence as figuring out how things work in order to overcome obstacles.

however, if something figured out how something works without needing to overcome it, we would still classify that as intelligence.

therefore, the psychologists definiton is wrong

Broken down further:

psychologist has two conditions to be met for intelligence to be established. If meeting these two conditions, it is sufficient to lablel something as intelligent

1. Figuring out how something works, and

2. in order to overcome obstacles

The author disagrees, claiming if only the first condition is met, that is sufficient to establish intelligence. By claiming we would certianly not say somehting isnt intelligent just because it wasnt learned in order to overcome an obstacle.

And therefore, the psychologists argument is wrong.

AC A: Rejects a definition on the grounds (correct first half). Wrong because the second half "make it impractical to determine which cases it covers" is incorrect. In fact, in both the author and the psychologists definitions, we woul have a clear understanding of which cases intelligence covers and which it doesn't.

AC B: Correct. The author uses a hypothetical application of a defintion to argue that the definition would have unacceptably counterintuitive conseuences. "If, however, we were to become convinced that a particular being had acquired an understanding of how things work, we would certainly not deny that that being possessed intelligence, even if we were sure that its acquisition of this understanding was not prompted by the desire to overcome some specific obstacle".

"If however" > hypothetical application

"we would certainly not deny" > counterintuitive consequences

AC C: The aithor is aguing that the. propsed definition is too narrow. The author wasnts it to be broader: meaning his one condition as opposed to the psychologists two conditions to be met.Secondly, both efinitoins can be clearly applied. In no scenario can they not be easily applied.

AC D: This is the reverse scope. This answer choice is claiming that the definition the psychologist applied is too broad. "...would apply to things which it normally does not apply". This is the authors argument. We should be applying the definition to things under to which the psychologists argument doesnt apply.

AC E: The appeal to authority would be the psychologist, however, nowhere in the argument does the author claim anyone has accepted the psychologists definition. and additionally, if anyone did support it - we dont know why they did either.

on B:

I feel like this is clearly supported for multiple reasons.

1. If the author is arguing in the case of Belize following precedent for other common law nations, if most are not in line with protecting native rights/not allowing use of their lands, then how could he say other jurisdictions that have pronounced in favor of native rights argue for a presumption in favor of recognizing those rights?

2. "This approach is consistent with the customary practice of courts in Belize, which is to look to precedents of other common law countries in the absence of relevant precedent in Belize law". Again, if theyre looking at precedents in this scenario, they're likely looking at common law countries and will side with the majority precedent decision. AKA not allowing the use of native lands. If the majority sides in favor of allowing usage of native lands, then the presumption would be in favor of NOT supporting these rights.

3. "The argument advanced by the Maya therefore relies substantially on precedents from other common-law jurisdictions, particularly Australia, Canada, and the United States—countries in which courts have recognized indigenous rights based on historical occupancy or use of lands."

   While this doesn't imply a majority, it gives us concrete examples, meaning this is implied.

I suppose my question here would be, in what scenario do we override what's implied for a more abstract answer choice? Maybe it's just a gut feeling? This is a question for me, upon review, which would lead me to second-guess everything. But perhaps I'm wrong and there are a lot of lines in support for AC C. i'm not seeing it.

I am having the same feeling! I typically score within the mid/high 160s; however, today's nerves certainly got the best of me. Basically, immediately after my test, I began spiraling. I was able to complete all sections of LR on time, but I certainly don't feel like I performed to my greatest ability. Now, what really made me spiral was the RC. I know for a fact I completely bombed it. However, as time goes on, I'm feeling more and more confident that I didn't do as badly as I thought. I think the stress of the test just shoots our nervous systems into overdrive and self-doubt. For now, until the results come, I'm trying to be optimistic but pragmatic. I think I did so-so on LR? I'm gonna trust my gut and my own data and believe I scored around what I usually do. I think I bombed RC? I'm going to take my average score and subtract a few points from it. I think this test excels in making us doubt our own abilities and second-guessing ourselves after it's completed. It's not like math, where you know for a fact 2+2=4. It's much subtler. Not to mention, we now have to wait three weeks to get the results, which I feel puts more strain on our rational thinking. I feel like I failed to reach my potential, too, but I'm not going to let it weigh me down. And if I didn't get a good score, I'll accept it and get ready for the next one. (Believe me, I'm hoping this is the last one.) Regardless, I'm trusting my typical section scores and PTs. Good luck! You are certainly not alone!

I had a similar thing happen to me where I was scoring high 160s, and -2 and -3 on LR sections, then suddenly one day, not long ago, I cratered with a couple of low sections all in one day. I corrected it, though, because I noticed on those bad sections that I stopped predicting answers without realizing it. I was going into the answer bank to pick the best one instead of already having a strong answer choice in my head. As soon as I went back to predicting, my scores rebounded to the typical level. So, I guess things like this happen and I wouldn't get discouraged.

Confidence for me seems to be a huge indicator of how well I do on a given section or test. If I go into a section unsure of myself, no matter how well I know the fundamentals and concepts, I'll end up second-guessing, falling into bad habits, and inevitably getting a poor score.

When I go in with high confidence, reminding myself of the scores I typically get and am capable of, I will normally score very well.

I think it's best not to get too worked up by this one result because it happens. When it does happen, instead of internally spiralling (like I did), it's probably best to just walk away from studying for the day and reset for the next time you study. Pay it no mind, and try to diagnose what went wrong.