I was stuck between (B) and (E), and just realized I totally ignored the most important part of the question - 'the author mention as a factor'. Both AC's are not 'mentioned' in the passage.

(D) is supported in the passage - since the jurors want to arrive at a firm view(=eager to solidify their position regarding the case), they can therefore be expected to use the early positive framing.

I think POE makes sense here, but I don't think I clearly understood why (A) doesn't weaken the argument.

Yes, (A) affects 'both' groups, but I wonder if 'inaccuracy of the test methodology' can be a factor weakening an argument.

merely A is true vs. A is false is not logically inconsistent, it's just opposing each other

I was so confused while solving this question but wow Kevin’s explanation is perfect perfect

It’s all based on this basic structure;

A <-s-> B

A -> C (answer choice)

B <-s-> C

I thought it's a part of a context...

but actually all the premises are supporting each other -> leading to the conclusion

[it is primarily by raising interest rates,~] -> [BUT it takes two years] => [THEREFORE they raise interest before,~] -> [BUT unless inflation is readily apparent,~] => [conclusion]

the source = the criticizer

source attack -> (A)

some could be =/= at least one must be

I missed this!!

god I doubted myself choosing (A) cuz it looked so obvious...then I got a wrong one in BR lol

I went with (E). It's wrong since a lack of connection doesn't necessarily indicate lack of influence on one another. We don't know.

Conclusion: development of the trail should proceed

Premise: citizen's objection is groundless.(because most trail users will be considerate enough)

So there's no direct support for the 'conclusion' that we should proceed the development of the trail

=> bases its conclusion mainly on a claim that an opposing argument is weak

Oh yes a model of a female guppy cannot give any feedbacks....... . . .

Still confused of (A)... my thought process was;

'unless their illiteracy is specifically mentioned' -> and I don't see anyone's illiteracy is specifically mentioned in stim. -> and we can presume that D's companion cannot read -> so we can reject the claim that characters are presumed to know how to read unless their illiteracy is specifically mentioned.

#help

I thought (C) makes sense cuz

1. there's no single legit sounding answer choice between (A),(B),(D),(E) lol

2. if the 'specific' outrageous acts attributed to C are 'very similar' to acts attributed other cruel tyrants, => wouldn't it be possible that those acts were actually attributed to others, not C? Maybe some enemies of C decided to borrow some stories from them and decided to write it as if it's done by C.

I wonder if I could eliminate (A) with the word 'conflict'. The explanation only mentions 'collective', but I don't think we were only talking about the case of conflict.

situation: high return(great mineral wealth) + low risk(moderate but easily tolerable harm)

this is the only info we have with the situation

(A) previously accepted views: take risk only if the value of the outcome is sufficiently high to compensate the risk => correct

(B) comparing the way they weigh the risk (seizing country vs. country being seized) => not mentioned

(C) no. seems benefit > risk

(D) we don't have any info other than objective calculation(benefit-mineral > risk-moderate)

(E) I got trapped by this just because it was talking about nations

passage: [nations also often take 'huge gambles' to retrieve..~]

are they taking a 'huge gamble'? no. benefit is considerable higher than the risk.

lol why did I even think they're comparing two hours with until 1985 and vs. one hour after 1985? I hate my brain sometimes

to understand the support structure in a easy way;

Weather is the most important factor -> new maps are better at weather than old ones -> so the new maps are better than the old ones

Does anyone have tips for approaching misinterpret questions? idk why I'm so confused everytime doing this question type

Does (B) can be a possible correct answer choice if (A) was not present?

umm so the 'volume of tissue to be supplied with nerves' that surviving nerve cells eventually adjust is referring to 'target cells'?

I got (E) right because I thought since during some periods of their development, some can die out(because of the lack of factor or encounter anti-NGF antibodies), which means they will not connect with any particular target cells.

I just don't understand the text explanation for (E). I might be just stupid but how can I link 'volume of tissue to be supplied with nerves' with 'target cells'?

There are 2 points I'm still confused of

1. so if the choice (D) was worded [A work of world literature is always influenced by 'national traditions' outside of the writer's national traditions], can this be the correct choice?

2. How can [received and interpreted](in the stim.) be interpreted as [affects the development](in answer choice (E)) ?

omg you're so right....

I got confused because of the sentence [According to Dworkin, this account is incompatible with the actual practice of judges and lawyers, who act as if there is a fact of the matter even in cases where there is no consensus.]

and the very next sentence goes:

[the theory he proposes seeks to validate this practice~]

Therefore, 'too often' in choice (A) is incorrect. He thinks it's valid, not too often!

I was first confused by (C). Though (C) is something Garcia might say, I thought author still believes (C) is true, but the problem is Garcia undermined the importance of the political differences.

In fact, the author believes there were no such consensus, rather the political history that time can be characterized by intense debate.

I'm still not 100% sure about the answer choice (B)...

It's stated in the passage that supercomputers worked 'too slow and inefficient to accurately predict ~', and I thought it can still predict in accurate way, the problem is just they're too slow and inefficient.

Isn't it too strong to say 'supercomputers are unable to accurately predict' ?

Can I also say (D) is wrong because 'some' does not guarantee 'most'?

I know (D) is already wrong for different reason, but just curious if I can interpret 'some' when dealing with this type of questions.

For example, let's say there's another answer choice (F) saying [some people in other surveys responded that they favor investing more money in information technologies.].

Does this can be the correct answer choice for this question or no? Can I say that this new choice is wrong because 'some' doesn't guarantee meaningful amount of the response to make is 'most'?

Since they already mentioned 'as far as total calorie content is concerned,', I thought (D) doesn't really matter. If they're already talking into account the total calorie content, why is (D) necessary? #help