Commentating twice to try and show how serious I am that at best this is misleading and at worst flat out wrong, rewarding forced incorrect inferences "to be the most correct".

Quickly going to throw this in because it seems some people are dancing around this without stating it more explicitly. AC B felt incorrect because at no point was it indicated that this choice was done intentionally to increase profits. Increased profits is shown as an after effect of a choice that was made because "[they]" have a great concern for [their] cows' environmental conditions" which leads to "improvements that increase their comfort" which in turn, as a byproduct, increase profits. This is flatly what we were given and to say that this was all done to increase profits is actually a ridiculous leap to me.

I chose AC A, which I understand is incorrect because is it too strong in saying "cannot have" but I will not relent on the fact the explanation being "there are no conditions that dictate... comfortable living conditions" is disingenuous. Quite literally in this same thread a tutor states nothing in the stimulus is given by chance, and we have a third of this paragraph that is solely concerned with discussing how the comfort level was raised and how we have raised it with these intentional choices.

So when did "most loyal" equate to "regular, long-term customers"? We have no way of identifying how much of a percent "most loyal" is of their base that is apparently the bulk of the business. And what does "do best" MEAN? This whole stimulus talks financials in terms of "business" and "charges", and now Im supposed to make the jump that the whatever proportion of most loyal customers makes the bank "do its best" means the bank should not offer the free services to newbies? Pretty frustrated.

This is once again a dishonest question to me. Anytime the answer references time with the word "probably" they should realize they have veered into assumption land which forces us to make a similar jump in logic penalized elsewhere. Also, "earliest" is defined as what? What time period? Is the moment they use that grape strike the moment the early period ended? The Teatro Campesino and the strike occur in a very close time period according the stimulus, potentially even the same year. This feels much too close to be able to look at this and say with absolution, "it did not play a major role".

I got this right and still do not understand what this question was trying to ask. The second sentence of the passage "By 1965, Chávez's United Farm Workers Union gained international recognition by initiating a worldwide boycott of grapes in an effort to get growers in California to sign union contracts" does not feel connected to the other answers at all, to the point of confusion. I got this right because A was the only one that seemed connected to the sentence, but I do not understand why the other answers are so removed from the point of the sentence? Is this really just a mid bait question?

I chose AC D here because of the wording "controllable to some extent" conflicting with the other ideas of contingencies. You do not have control over the social conditions under which you come of age, nor your households economy (as a child), nor accidental circumstances. Controllable to some extent implies there is at least a level of control. I understand the stimulus states "varying degrees of control", but that is not the same implication as controllable to some extent. As for why I did not choose B, historical structuring was defined as how society and individuals interact with each other to shape each other; at some level that felt like what a contingency was, something shaping a person.

I believe this is inexact wording.

Im gonna rip my head off.

Thanks.

I don't have a great long logical explanation, but the question wording is annoying and misleading to a level I find dishonest. "According to the hypothesis" makes me look solely at the stimulus, what does the stimulus infer that must be true here, not what makes this true as its really trying to ask. I selected B, as if someone does not have a hard time falling asleep, then they don't need this method. I understand the key piece is saying "normally" erodes the choice as this only discusses the moment you use the method in a vacuum, but still, the question wording makes me look at AC C as completely irrelevant to the stimulus. There is no mention of how this keeps people up or could do so, it leans into how it helps. The wording feels closer to outright bad than trying to "deceive." Rant over.

Hi! The bit following that, "It is a fact granted by the editorial" changes the context of the word fact here. Stating that it was granted means the editorial is taking that statement as fact, which we can see in how they refer and use the information. If it did not say that then I would agree the use of fact is a bit strong. Hope that makes sense!

Do not like this at all, I truly feel these statements are in conflict. "[I]s always the unique result of an interaction between a reader's system of beliefs and the poem" referring to the meaning of the poem. There is no discussion of other readers, but more important the use of always the unique result. There is no room for someone else's opinion to be apart of interpretation if, per the question, the critic's statements are true. And while "any two readers from different cultures... have radically different systems", how does that exclude the possibility of people from different eras coming to the same conclusion? I understand it opens the door to saying they should have different interpretations, but that infers every single person in any one era has the same experience and therefore the same interpretation across the board. I do not agree with this question's reasoning in the slightest.

From the percentages I can see I am in a minority of thought here, but the term "earlier" before scholarship and the frequent referral between modern and older histories made it very confusing to tell if we were referring to the European scholars or if the term scholarship was being applied to the early Native expressions. I guessed incorrectly due to that confusion, I will need to be sharper.

FUCK this fucking question.

Frustrating because I narrowed this down thinking the cost of the devices were important as the stimulus said the readings are "expensive to obtain" and lichen may offer a "cheaper way to monitor", which the author immediately follows up by saying "to investigate this". That made me think the cost of this was essential to proving the argument. Wrong.

@mikeross-jr I agree, I did not believe the stimulus ruled out the possibility of an amino acid forming, just that it would be extremely rare. If so, and all it takes is 1 single amino acid to be sufficient, it would explain to me how the acid could "defy the odds" and life could form. Apparently, not.

With respect, the way the answers are written overly simple and short with no punctuation / poor mechanics makes this a nightmare to parse through and compare back to the relatively longer stimulus.

Lets get it!! I am 24 and looking to test in September, trying to find a new route in life. Honestly I have struggled with feeling alone in this study process and seeing all the comments here was a big boost. Hope everyone is doing good, we will crush this!