honestly this question I got right not by knowing the right answer but by eliminating the wrong ones and then guessing which seems right.

im so shocked that I got this right under timed conditions. but here is my reasoning:

I saw that

1. if most favour the bill and

2. doesn't violate human rights

then in a functioning democracy it will eventually be passed into law.

This is the logic I needed an answer choice to match this.

a - here they bring up "benefit most people" this is a trick benefiting most people is not the same as most people favouring the bill which is what we are looking for here. The bill could be favoured by most but it doesn't benefit most.

b - here they flipped the arrow. we're looking for if most favour + doesn't violate rights → in functioning democracy it will be law eventually. Now here they flip the arrow the other way around without properly negating and switching so we know it's wrong. Move on

c- brings up one of the conditions that favoured by most, doesn't bring up the other condition how it must also not violate human rights. Then talks about influential people having to not oppose the bill for it to succeed - we don't need this.

d - honestly this I eliminated because its too strong. The language I didn't like and E was just so good that I just in a heartbeat gave this up.

E - exactly what we're looking for. Has the two conditions: most people favor and not violate human rights, promptly meaning eventually will pass into law PERFECT

what a great feeling man being stuck between a and e and somehow picking a and then the video - a person comes up to your conversation and says a and you tell them please just be quiet like wait can we explain how its wrong so I know not to fall for it in the future!!!!

Me who picked E listening to Kevin roast it 😳🫢

But fr I eliminated all the answers except an and e, im so mad at myself. I thought a was the trap

So crazy I can't believe my intuition was right. I read B and was like immedieltly yeah we're assuming whoever sent the flowers wants to please. I eliminated c, d, e and was between a,b,c. then my gut told me b.

mss is not my strong suit. I was with B and liked it because if most people 59% are planning on paying back before the interest and its for convienece then its kinda fair to assume that they wouldn't care too much about the interest rates the banks charge, they might care but it won't be the "main selling point" like b says. Im so mad because I was with this answer.

Then eliminated the rest and got to E and thought oh because people are looking for convenient. The stim says "intending to use the cards only to avoid carrying cash and writing checks." the main selling point would be how many places the credit card is accepted by. Here's my takeaway, this is a strong answer and if this was a strengthen question this would be so good, but MSS questions are looking for something that is already proven, not something that would require an assumption and would strengthen it

This question I almost got tricked -

I liked B until I say other than heart and lung, if it said its not known causal factor in any disease I would have liked this answer. But because it says that specially heart and lung and Erins argument only talks of heart and lung so it doesn't go against or rebuttal her argument.

A I dismissed because why does matter if they're against it, it's a business of course they might be against it that doesn't matter for why we should implement it or not.

C is so weak like yes obviously it will decrease if we reduce auto usage but how are we gonna do that, people won't suddelnyly drive less - weak

I was between D and E.

I ended up eliminating E because on closer look you can see the flaw. It says this chemical is one of several that cause cancer - this answer wants you to make the assumption that oh its only one of others so why don't we look at the others and try to reduce them. But no stop yourself here, why don't we reduce this specifically, there's no reason so - eliminated it for that.

Then D was the only one snd after reading closely I saw that it provided an explanation that rebuttals good because the stimulus only talks that this chemical is in the auto exhaust - this answer tells us that most of the chemical is actually in the tires. So even if we do reduce the chemical in the exhaust, most of the chemical is in the tires anyway. But I wasn't able to see this at first, only after I eliminated the rest

I got tricked by this question. In timed, I picked C because I saw that some chemical substances reduces stress but also impairs memory so the mice wouldn't have better memory, I failed to see it says some chemical substances, now in blind review I immediately crossed this answer out because we don't know if ginkgo is part of the some chemical substances. I was in blind review stuck between B and E. I liked both but

this is the stimulas pattern to weaken we have to find something that doesn't lead to the next

Grinko - lowers stress - better recall

Answer B gives this it shows that none of the mice have high stress to for the grinko to lower. it gives us something we need and weakens it.

E tempting but we don't care how long it takes them - we care about how good their recall is the next day.

so I got this wrong in timed but right in blind review. When I first read it I picked B because I thought oh people might think the lower price is less quality but I failed to recall that there were previously selling in equal numbers meaning people don't think either is less quality, so it going on sale wouldn't make people think its less quality because they know the brand and its established.

On blind review I saw A which I immediately dismissed in timed idk why. But it makes perfect sense, people walk in and know where the things are, and don't pay attention the first couple seconds in the store and if the sale item is not in its usual place but rather in the front it makes sense why people wouldn't see it at first.

I took this section late at night maybe my brain wasn't working lol but I initially got it wrong then in blind review the next morning I got it right.

Initially I picked A - logic here was there was another reason that high-water wasn't recovering and it was the acid rain?.

But I failed to see the conclusion is that the ban on fishing caused Quapaw to recover to weaken - we need to find something else that could have caused the recovery or disprove that the ban caused the recovery.

B here was perfect because it weakens the link that ban=recovery cuz it shows that before the ban there was no fishing at this lake so the ban couldn't have resulted in the recovery.

Lesson for me don't take tests and sections at night loll

I got this right in blind review and wrong in my initial attempt. Initially I picked D. My logic here was that I was looking for something to explain why manufacturing jobs are decreasing and international trade is decreasing and D provides an explanation for this. But upon reading the stem again we are also looking for an explanation why the service economy is increasing while manufacturing and international trade decreasing. And in blind review c stood out as the only correct answer as it provides an explanation why service is increasing - as it tends to be local and delivered in person.

@diplomacy448169 Im right there with you totally got destroyed by this section and today is my last study session before my exam the day after tomorrow. Hoping the exam is nothing like this section or anything from pt 151!!

I literally read it wrong, I read it as so there is nothing wrong with exploiting depraved pop taste, basically the opposite of what it said that why I picked e cuz the rest were saying the opposite of what I thought it said.

So reminder READ the stem carefully!!!

was stuck between B and E, them remembered this is an NA so Everyone is too strong. and at that point I eliminated everything else except b and e. Say b and looked at the conclusion again and realized its the gap.

The premise says

1. increasing threat of punishment causes reduce in guilt or shame committing transgression.

2. Guilt or shame committing transgression causes decrease in person's tendency to commit transgression.

3. conclusion: increase in severity of legal punishment causes increase in people's tendency to ignore the welfare of others.

   The bridge here is that welfare of others and transgression

the question asks which principle does this argument follow, like which logic does it follow not what is flawed with this argument.

D - outlines the flaw in the argument. Upon review I saw that B is correct

@fomconnicotine I hate this question too, but in my opinion Question 22 was way worse like that question caused me trauma

what an evil question like why simply w

for me I got this correct in timed here was my process. I was stuck between B and E.

I eliminated A - because it says that if the construction project is necessary in order to strengthen the town's economy, but this not necessary, the premise only says that its sufficient to strengthen the economy not necessary.

Eliminated C - it's just weird and bad, like what does debt have to do with anything it's just random. The issue we're trying to justify is whether the residents should fund the construction project not HOW should they fund it.

Eliminated D - not this is also wrong like the premise said that all residents benefit so not this is contradicting and saying only those who benefit.

The stem says IF the complex would strengthen economy and stronger economy benefits everyone THEN the residents should vote for the road. The contrapositive for that would be IF the residents should not vote for the road then the complex would not strengthen the economy and benefit everyone.

B is trying to establish why we should not vote but we are trying to argue why they should vote and E seems glaringly correct after seeing these flaws with the rest

For this during timed I got it wrong picked d, now I see that is so wrong. Scientists don'r need to accept the theory. Then in review when I knew d is wrong but didn't know the right answer. I eliminated all but c and e, then I picked e because it's necessary for the conclusion and without it would fall apart. The hypothesis is that this light absorbing medium explains the low visible star systems from earth. The author argues that this hypothesis is incorrect because this low visible star systems is already explained by an existing theory. A necessary assumption is that this existing theory that already explains for the star systems does not have a light absorbing medium, otherwise if this was incorrect the whole argument falls apart and we can't reject the hypothesis.

C is just saying what's likely to be correct that doesn't matter for a necessary assumption we need something that absolutely needs to be apart of the argument to be true.

in timed I got this wrong, honestly barely understood it and was brain dead picked d but it was just a random answer to just move on. In review I knew my d is wrong but I didn't know which answer is correct, I then read the question and came across b and liked the answer but said lets see the rest and the rest were weaker and worse, while b is connected and can be inferred.

I also was tripped and picked a in timed then picked b in blind review. So

Premises:

Although there is indisputable evidence that ozone, an air pollutant, can be dangerous for severe asthmatics even if found in levels much lower than maximum levels permitted by law, most people are currently well aware that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to our community.

Intermediate Conclusion:

People generally notice and are concerned about only the most obvious public health problems.

Conclusion: Hence, there is unlikely to be a widespread, grassroots effort for new, more restrictive air pollution controls at this time.

I also fell for a at first then I realized I messed up the diagraming and didn't read all the answer choices carefully.

honestly pretty embarrassed that a level one almost tricked me. I was stuck between B and D and ultimately decided d is more clear explanation of the evidence that they used fire. But I saw B it says used fire for cooking or heat but we're looking for something to explain why there is "large areas of land burned", I thought that the cooking and heating would not be a large area but rather multiple small areas, and for it to be large area a huge amount of people need to live in the same area and they all use the exact same huge land for cooking and heat and this is a huge assumption. Any answer choice that makes you make assumption for it to be true is wrong.

this was so weirdly worded I liked b but the wording threw me off and I decided a is better because it shows why the rain is pure but it doesn't help. Seeing the explanation for why this is wrong makes sense, a proves that the rain is not making it better to worse because its effect is negligible, we are looking for an answer and resolve the issue of why the pollution is getting worse when the rain is pure. B provides that explanation although the wording sucks.

C is bad because it doesn't say if the water from the oceans is polluted or not we need an explicit explanation not implied.

d - also very bad

E - okay we don't careyes others experience this we want to know why! Not that oh its happening to other

I Knew it was either C or E, I wrongly picked C. At first I thought its good and this would be good for an SA questions but now I see that C doesn't need to be true, what if there is another planet that is not earth that we could get the basic materials. I need it was the assumption that the basic materials are expensive because they are coming from earth, I remember thinking well if they dont need to come from earth, that's why I fell for C. But I realize it's not necessary that earth is the only source that's way too strong. The assumption is that there is not another planet other than earth that the basic materials can be obtained where it wouldn't be expensive. This could be a closer planet or mars itself. and answer E says this its assuming mars is not where the basic materials can be obtained from and this is Necessary for this argument. Because they argue it must be gotten from earth so its necessary that we can't get it from mars.

What a weird question I was between B and E, ultimately picked E. Come to find out both B and E were wrong. I eliminated b because to my understanding the habitats being similar is not a necessary condition from the stimulus so it can't be after the UNLESS. I went for E, didn't realize that being permissible is not strong enough to justify the reasoning. I completely originally dismissed C because I didn't like the "whatever is most likely to prevent extinction" I thought that might be too extreme to do whatever when the whatever could do more harm than good, and usually they tell us to be careful of strongly skewed answers like doing whatever it takes. But now I see its a good answer and proves the conclusion.