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

I understand why (A) is correct, why (D) is wrong, but part of the explanation for (D) still confuses me.

The explanation of (D) is saying

[it's not clear that Passage A argues for a view.]

: and from the words author used such as 'Actual ownership of property MUST then be brought into~', I can comfortably think that the author is 'arguing'..?

@emilyrroberts You're so right.. I think I also confused the MOST support and DEFINITIVE support. Now it makes so much more sense. Thank you!

@JoyelleBaek

Ok so after watching Kevin's explanation video, I sort of got it.

It can be neutral of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good. But still being neutral is better than damaging individuals, which is advantageous(comparing neutral vs. damaging).

Now another question is:

Can I safely understand the word 'advantageous' in this way for other questions as well? I also want to know if 'advantageous' and 'beneficial' is completely different or not.

I'm still stuck with (B)..

I do understand that negated form of (B) is:

It is NOT to the advantage of ANY individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good.

However, can't it be not advantageous to anyone but still not 'damage' individuals? If this it right, even if I negate (B), it seems like the argument doesn't fail. Or maybe I'm thinking too much? Can someone explain me this

If this was not a NA question, I can get it but I don't see why (B) has to be 'necessary'.

I still feel like the first sentence (There is little plausibility to the claim~) is the main conclusion, but since there's no exact answer choice pointing this sentence, that's why (E) is the answer?

Even if I try to compare the two sentences

1. There is little plausibility~

2. To be judgmental is not ~

still feels 2 is supporting 1.

I'm confused between (A) and (D)

(A)

stim: isolation -> less response

(A): /isolation -> /less response

ok I understand this doesn't work, but it feels like (D) has the same structure

(D)

stim: rare coverage -> discourage

(D): /rare coverage(more frequent) -> /discourage(reduce at least one source)

Also they're both using 'would(likely)'. How should I approach? Or is there any other reason why (A) is wrong?

The only A are B =/= Only A are B

1. The only A are B

   : if you're A, you're definitely B

   : A -> B

2. Only A are B

   : B -> A

This got me...

I got both actual take and BR wrong, and came back to this question again. Now I can sort of see why (A) is the right answer;

* The only part the author actually present their opinion(value judgement) : An act or omission by one person is NOT RIGHT if such an act or omission done by large numbers of people would be socially damaging.

* First sentence:

/vote -> social cohesion will be lost (= socially damaging) -> NOT RIGHT

* Therefore, we can reasonably think that the ultimate point the author wants to say is;

(To be right), people should vote

: which is (A)

I chose: (E)

Why: 'pipelines that connect surrounding and interior bacteria' -> interior bacteria can die something coming through the pipelines

Why wrong:

1) phenazines -> 'fend off other bacteria' (I completely ignored the first job of phenazines)

2) why interior bacterias are MORE likely to die than those along the edges? If some harmful materials are coming through the pipeline that can kill the interior bacterias, aren't the bacterias outside along the edges equally or more in danger?

Right AC: (A)

Why:

1) the hypo: [phenazines also serve as pipelines that give interior bacteria access to essential nutrients in the environment surrounding]

2) Bacteria without phenazines ; use different ways to increase the contact with the surrounding environment(to get the nutrient)

3) We can assume that 'receiving the nutrients from the surrounding environment' is needed, and phenazines serve this role by giving interior bacterias pipeline

=> supports the hypo.

Can I say the answer choice C is wrong because 'unpredictable' and 'unexpected' are different? Can C be the right choice if it was stated 'unexpected' instead of 'unpredictable'?

@02kimask tysm! Option 1 really helped my understanding🥹

For option 2,

S' dog -> /dach can be also mapped in contrapositive way like

dach -> /S' dog

and that's why I thought it aligns with the statement!

But now I see how Option 1 works and that's the way I had to approach! Thank you again!

I both considered A and D, and below is my thought process;

(A) if there's snow(like as it mentioned in the conclusion), there should be cloud -> low temp

so I thought the presence of snow itself can also lower the temp. , which strengthen the conclusion.

(D) Like many people said, if the heat coming from the passage of sunlight is the majority of heat of the atmosphere,

the greater the snow -> reflect more -> cooler significantly(since it can reduce heat from the major source)

But what I missed was the [structure] of the passage)

reflect(cool) => Snow and ice > ocean water or land

The important thing is the comparison between snow/ice <-> ocean water or land.

Since it's [most strengthen] question, you want to go with the choice which is the most closely related to the passage.

If the choice (E) was

Present-day flowers rely exclusively on bees for their survival

, does this can be also the right choice?

@QAAA Since it's 'MSS' question, I think it's better to think the flowers 'might have been needed' to change, rather than they 'must have been needed'.

It's more like giving possible explanations.

If other insects and bees all share the same similar vision, why only bees can identify the colors? -> Maybe then the flowers developed!

In this case, the fact that there are many insects that have vision very similar to that of bees can make a possible explanation(support) the argument that flowers developed in response to the type of vision that bees have.

If we don't know if 'most' surviving corridos do not exist in complete form since it's not stated in the passage(choice B), how do we know that 'all' complete corridos have some lines in common though it's also not stated(choice C)?

I still don't understand why D is wrong and A is right.

this is my thought process;

good -> /harm

wealth -m-> harm

C: wealth -> /good

(A)

A -> golf

chess club -> /golf

C: A -> /chess club

(D)

S' dog -> hunt

dach -m-> /hunt

C: S' dog -> /dach

still don't know...why A is the right one

Hi! I have a question on using the 'split' method for reading the passage.

I was not able to approach question 19 before reading the passage B, because I thought there's nothing I can guess only based on passage A for this question.

I want to know if there's anyone who was able to eliminate some of the choices from this question only after reading passage A, and how did you approach. Thank you!

@JosephHindle Hi! Like you mentioned, I was thinking that there's no way we know if the scholarship was written 'recently', and that's exactly why I eliminated the choice C and D. I think the fact that we don't know the time period it was written itself can be enough reason to get rid of some of the choices, also which we don't need to know when it was written.

I did get why the rest of the answer choices are wrong, but still don't understand why A is right.

to me, (A) is 3rd factor other than those two mentioned in the passage (too quick, poorly organized).

I understood the passage itself is completing the argument in this form:

X can be caused by A or B

A is not the case

Therefore, X is caused by B

and the choice (A) is suggesting that another factor C is not the case;

X can be caused by A or B

A is not the case

C is not the case (choice (A))

Therefore, X is caused by B

with this process, I thought the choice (A) may 'strengthen' the argument, but not necessarily required.

I don't know why did I even think that tracking the number of audiences for each allotted airtime is possible

So far I love it but I know I'll regret saying this once I see the questions

excited for the new session!

Hi!!