Why is AC A ironic?

One trick that has helped me a lot in both strengthen and weaken question is to build a bridge between the premise (experiencing an earthquake) and conclusion (dreaming about earthquakes). Once you label the premise and conclusion, you can fill in the gap to strengthen the argument, or break the bridge to weaken the argument. In this case to strengthen it, you could show how experiencing an earthquake has lead to dreaming about earthquakes, because before experiencing earthquakes no one dreamt about earthquakes. An example to weaken it would be if students were having dreams about earthquakes before they experienced it, to show that the earthquake didn't cause the dreams. Hope this helps!

I chose A, how am I supposed to recognize the difference between an analogy and a comparison?

Google:

No, physical work and physical exercise are not the same, though they share some similarities. Physical work is typically done for a specific task or job, while physical exercise is a structured activity done to improve fitness.

:(

Please allow notes to save drafts automatically. I have been working on a couple that delete when I don't save them immediately after typing it. Also I think it would be a great idea to add a highlighting feature so that we can reference the specific words/sentences from the passage that we mention in our notes.

I'm having the same issue! I'm going to be implementing 2 practice tests a week and hopefully my time improves. Also, I've heard several people recommend reading at least one news article a day and writing a low res summary. The Economist and Scientific American are good places to start. Hope this helps!

Great recommendation, I second this!

Can someone help me understand the comparison made in B?

I thought that it was comparing two items (books and televisions) by focusing on a quality that the two items share (time).

Is there any other questions similar to this one? The video didn't really help me understand the reason why A is the right answer.

My thought process that might help:

Strengthen the Position in Passage A and B: You should look for a fact that will strengthen the argument mentioned in the stem.

I chose B bcs we need to focus on for-profit archaeology. Passage B explicitly mention the commercial exploitation of UCH is prohibited and passage A mentions that archaeologists abhor the sale of recover artifacts. We need to find a fact that proves why selling artifacts would have a negative effect.

I was also wondering about this!

Please post the update under this discussion thread, so I will receive the notification :)

I'm so lost. I chose B bcs I thought we were looking for a flaw in Arnot's argument not the author's. This has happened to me before, can some help me understand how to know which argument we are focusing on.

I chose B, I keep getting these flaw questions wrong. I think it's bcs I treat them like weaken questions and try to attack an assumption the argument makes. What does "takes for granted" mean? Cuz I've replacing it with "assumes".

How are we supposed to know that the 38% is an average?

I read this as 29% students at Westerville take at least one night class and this needs to add to 9% of students at Pulham taking at least one night class to equal to a total of 38% of Harrison students taking at least one night class.

Does the last sentence not prove that the milks are equally safe since they are both regularly screened from antibiotics? Pls help, I chose B.

I chose D. Can both an intermediate/sub conclusion and main conclusion be considered as general conclusions made in a passage?

If so, "Nations do not have consciences." provides support for the intermediate conclusion, but would still be wrong bcs it's not an instance.

How specific does an instance need to be?

If anyone has any tips on how to differentiate premises, intermediate conclusions, and main conclusions I would greatly appreciate it!!

I understand why C is correct but, I don't really understand the reason why B is wrong. The author of passage B doesn't comment on the reductionist extreme and where skeptics fall, wouldn't that be considered not responding?