AC B clicked for me when I asked myself if the argument was valid if you couldn't distiguish the variable you were measuring

C is incorrect because you can't revise a definition if there's a lack of definition to begin with in Passage A

A) (my BR answer) part of the summary of benefits from printing press/email/phones

I wasn't thinking of the maximization of financial success opening markets so much as I was thinking of the democratization of access. But the explanation suggests that the author doesn't summarize the benefits of tech development. I guess it would talk about something other than investors wanting to make more money

B) (my first answer) it serves as a logical conclusion from the data about the social consequences of new tech

same confusion for me. didn't realize the maximizing of investments through market expansion was the focus.

The reference to maximization of financial success is not a logical conclusion from the previous paragraph. It’s the author’s causal explanation for how the benefits in the previous paragraph are produced by the market system. Also, there was no “data” presented in the previous paragraph.

To equivocate means to use unclear, vague, or confusing words on purpose so you can hide the truth or avoid giving a straight answer

"lawyers have no right to determine guilt" v. "if lawyers know guilt, they can't deny it"

these are different statements but I originally read them as both saying "lawyers remove themselves from the guilty equation by not determining the existence of guilt and pleading the 5th by staying silent regarding guilt"

but in retrospect I can see how those are two different things as guilt is determined in the latter.

Q2: In P2, Rohwer says the sparrows' neck color indicated dominance thus supporting the hypothesis (SSH).

However, Rohwer's data in P3 says HOLD UP no it doesn't! Why doesn't the data support the SSH?? Well last sentence of P3 tells us-- youth v. adult sparrows are used to show that while a dark neck may say you're older (and thus dominant), "age-related plumage differences do not signal the status of individual birds within an age class."

It's an age thing not a neck color thing!

The example of adult Harris sparrows usually have dark necks indicates the plumage variation doesn't show individual status (but rather age).

2 -> 3 brought a new system of order to nontonal music and stabilizing it (sounds likes a departure if you're introducing a new system) but using elements of the past in a new style in the future was a "natural progression"

A and B both felt right. In A, "aesthetic experience" ultimately threw me off because recalling memories does not equate to an aesthetic experience to me.

B felt right because "any work of art" felt subjective and open for possibilities. BUT the passage did only mention layering in paintings and perfume.

Understanding from this that "any" is too extreme and should've picked A.

@Lylas123 Analogy:

Group 1 was exposed to HIV but did not develop AIDS. Group 2 have no exposure and have not developed AIDS. Group 1’s HIV exposure levels can impact developing AIDS.

Weaken: But Group 1 (unlike Group 2) WERE exposed and something blocked the AIDS/HIV from developing.

@Lora.nedza could easily draw a COVID analogy. Group 1 (COVID resistant hell yeah) went to a party- exposed to COVID- didn't get COVID. Group 2 (idk if I'd get COVID or not) stayed home- not exposed to COVID- didn't get COVID.

Let's weaken the argument that says going to a party can affect how much immune response (party>immune) I have.

I could weaken by saying actually it's my immune system in response to the party (immune>party) that helped me not develop COVID.

This picks up on the fact that I am in the group that is COVID resistant not the group that avoided exposure all together thereby weakening the argument.

@Lylas123 TLDR- the explanation points out that there is a difference between not having something because you were exposed and something blocked it versus you don't have something because you were never exposed.

Think of two groups: group 1 (people have experienced trauma who did not developed PTSD) and group 2 (people who have not experienced trauma and have not had the chance to develop and therefore have no PTSD). The HIV/AIDS analogy mirrors this. Group 1 (people who have been exposed to HIV but for an unknown reason do not develop AIDS) and group 2 (people who have not been exposed to HIV and did not develop AIDS). Note group 2 could develop AIDS if exposed at the same rate of the general population but that lack of exposure gives them that no AIDS status.

E. is not relevant to the argument since it doesn't care about items that were never in the pit to begin with

B is wrong because smaller personal gardens on average may suggest that there's been an increase in the "planting" of personal gardens

E is correct because the two largest seed companies maybe aren't representative of the seed industry