The IFT has helped explain things that were a mystery, such as how social insects have evolved, as most of these social insects don't produce offspring and only nurture their relatives

A) Sure, the IFT theory came about in the 60s, but we don't know when we discovered these specific behaviors of bees, so, irrelevant

B) Don't know anything about nurturing in return

C) no

D) is not calling into question; it says it explains the behavior

E) correct - the author says that the behavior is difficult to explain, but has been explained by IFT - this is what E is saying. E says that their behavior is difficult to explain initially, but when we take into consideration IFT, it makes more sense.

Paragraph 2: IFT applied to cannibalism in animals. Cannibals evolved to avoid eating kin bc of genetic costs.

Ex: Spadefoot tadpole - start as omnivores but occasionally eats another which changes physiology and dietary preference - making them primarily carnivorous. These tadpoles will nip at others and let their kin go unharmed but eat the non kin.

Cannibal tadpole less likely to avoid eating kin when it becomes very hungry which puts its own genetic makeup ahead

A vs C

A) correct - Yes, this is correct bc it is contradictory to what IFT theorizes.

C) wrong - this contradicts what the last sentence is doing. It says that there are sometimes a reason where a tadpole WILL eat a sibling which is contradictory to IFT.

Stim:

devote to study of natural processes --> leisure --> resources plentiful --> discoveries

resource plentiful --> leisure --> devote to study of natural process

Some anthropologists claim agriculture began when there was drought and hunger; however the first people to domesticate plants must have first figured out how the plants they grew reproduced and grew themselves. These discoveries was because of the study of natural processes

A) contrapositive

B) something new - do not know anything about theoretical processes

C) the stim says that these societies must have learned about the natural processes before being able to cultivate crops. In order to make these discoveries, you need plentiful resources which is what my diagram says. Plentiful resources --> discoveries --> lead to agriculture. This is what C says.

D) do not care about nonagricultural societies

E) do not know anything about an accident

I had narrowed it down to A and B and ultimately chose A as I was unsure as to what B was saying. B, however, is correct because it is basically saying that just because a belief was held for an invalid reason (this case being the earth is at the center, so people and earth are important), does not mean it cannot be true for other reasons. For example, people on earth may not be important bc the earth is not at the center of the universe, but my family and friends think I am important, so it is true that I am still important for this reason.

Looking back at A, I can understand why it is wrong. A os basically saying that in order for there to be a good reason to believe something, it MUST be a true statement. However, the essayist does not give any sufficient or necessary indicators on what can or cannot be believed so it cannot be the correct answer.

Stim: Over the last 25 years, average car price paid for new car has increased in relation to average income. This increase indicates that individuals who buy new cars today spend larger amounts to their income buying a car than did ppl 25 years ago.

A) do not care about number of wage earners, stim is ab individuals

B) do not care about used cars

C) just because average income declined, that does not necessarily mean that they are spending less on cars.

D) do not care about population increase

E) correct - if a smaller amount of individuals are buying new cars than 25 years ago, this would explain why the average price paid has gone up

A) no

B) dont care about success

C) don't care about compromise

E) absolutely no mention of a "flawed approximation"

This is how I diagrammed it:

vague law --> limit on freedom --> impossible to know if axn legal --> not secure

secure --> know axn legal --> no limit on freedom --> vague law

A) correct - secure --> axn legal - this matches the diagram.

B) wrong - "might" is the word that messes this up. The conclusion is absolute so we do not want a wishy washy answer. We need an answer that matches the absolute of the stim, so the might destroys this.

C) wrong - contrapositive

D) wrong - don't care about not vague laws

E) wrong - contrapositive

B - wrong bc of two reasons

1) It is flipped. The stim tells us that if the recordings are deemed to be popular, then they will be transferred to CDs. In order for it to be deemed successful enough, the recordings need to be played on the radio. So, played on radio --> prob will be successful/profitable --> transfer to CD. AC B tells us that few CDs with jazz are played on the radio. Okay? We don't really care and there is no requirement for the CD to be transferred before going on the radio. Our stim tells us that popularity on the radio FIRST determines if it will go to a CD.

2) It also just restates the premise so it really doesn't give u any info that would strengthen our argument.

Stim: price of ticket same today as one year ago (when taking in account inflation and calc constant dollars). however, 90% are discounted and 10% normal. One year ago, 50% were discounted and 50% were normal. So, people pay less ON AVERAGE today than one year ago.

• they pay less on average bc more of the tickets are discounted.

A) wrong - don't care about service quality

B) correct - in order for the conclusion to be true/strengthened, we need to understand that if the rate in constant dollars is the same, this would in fact mean that the customers pay less on average. Because if the constant dollars are equal, then more tickets being discounted today than a year ago would mean that people pay less on average after it has been calculated to constant dollars. Also, in order for the average to make sense, it needs to be known that the ticket prices of discounted tickets are the same in constant dollars.

C) wrong - literally restates the premise so it does not make the argument stronger, also we don't care about ALL full-fare tickets that the airline carries as a whole - we care about the Toronto-Dallas tickets.

D) wrong - don't care about the # of passengers

E) wrong - don't care about the criteria for how discounts are offered

I understood the passage, but the ACs were so confusing to me

based in LA and would love to join :)