C is correct because it is supported by the line:

A CLS scholar might object that legal cases . . . cannot merely apply the rules without appealing to . . . external considerations of purpose, policy, and value.

In the above quote, the "rules" refer to the law, and so it can be inferred that the CLS believes that the answer to a legal question must take into account "external considerations of purpose, policy, and value."

A is incorrect because there is no suggestion that the CLS believe there can be definitive solutions to legal problems; the word "definitive" is just too strong to be supported by what we are given.

B is incorrect because the CLS argue that the law is inadequate to determine legal cases without the approval of any policies or values, so applying the law does necessarily imply the approval of certain policies or values.

D is incorrect because it is Meyerson that holds this view, whereas the CLS explicitly refute this view: "A CLS scholar might object that legal cases are unlike games."

E is incorrect because we are not given any stance of the CLS regarding how to choose between conflicting values. All we are told is the CLS's criticism of orthodox law regarding the issue without providing a solution of their own.

A is correct. The criticism identified is Meyerson's critique that "legal formalism . . . requires objectivism, the belief that the legal process has moral authority." This is followed by Meyerson's appeal to a principle and an analogy exemplifying that principle. A potential objection to Meyerson's reasoning is raised, and her response to that objection is provided. Together, Meyerson's reasoning her for criticism, a potential objection, and her response serves to investigate the plausibility of her criticism.

B is incorrect because it is really only Meyerson's argument that is advanced in the final paragraph. All we get from the CLS is a potential objection they'd make, so AC B overstates the degree to which CLS's argument is advanced.

C is incorrect because there is no new position offered to reconcile Meyerson's and the CLS's position.

D is incorrect because there are no practical consequences suggested about Meyerson's nor the CLS's belief.

E is incorrect because there is no solution presented in the final paragraph; rather it is a criticism to a certain viewpoint.

A is correct. The phrase is a referential to a claim made by the CLS that Meyerson takes issue with, and the phrase appears in the lines:

The acknowledgment that conflicting values can exist, then, does not have the far-reaching implications imputed by CLS; even if some answer to a problem is not the only answer, opting for it can still be reasonable.

The latter part of the sentence implies that the far-reaching implications refer to the idea that if an answer to a problem is not the only answer, opting for it would be irrational.

B is incorrect because Meyerson shows no objection to the idea that every legal question will involve the consideration of a set of values, nor is it clear that the CLS holds this position to begin with.

C is incorrect because Meyerson concedes that two solutions may be equally compelling, so it won't be considered far-reaching for these solutions to carry equal moral weight:

In addition, says Meyerson, even when the two solutions are equally compelling, it does not follow that the choice between them must be irrational.

It is important to note that two solutions being equally compelling is different from them carrying equal moral weight. Meyerson may think that solution A is more compelling than solution B, despite acknowledging that solution B carries more moral weight than solution A; this just goes to show that AC C is actually irrelevant.

D is incorrect because Meyerson never objects to the idea that no legal question will have a single correct answer. Firstly, the CLS never argued this, and secondly, even if they did, this view is consistent with Meyerson's view, as she argues that "even if some answer to a problem is not the only answer, opting for it can still be reasonable."

E is incorrect because the CLS never argue what is the most relevant criterion for judging solutions.

E is correct because it is supported by the line: "Meyerson replies that such considerations may be viewed as part of, not separate from, the rules of the game." The fact that Meyerson argues with the CLS shows that she would agree that the issue is a matter of debate.

A is incorrect because there is no reference to the dependence of one's degree of belief in the legal process.

B is incorrect because there is no appeal to the extent to which the policies and values can be endorsed.

C is incorrect because the idea of something having moral authority comes from the CLS; it is not clear if Meyerson would agree with the idea, and if so, if she would ascribe it to be the determining factor in choosing between values. In fact, the example provided by Meyerson antisupports AC C: "in certain cases the professional obligation overrides ordinary moral obligations."

D is incorrect because there is no suggestion about the desirability of policies and values.

D is correct because it is supported by the low-res summary of the passage:

• M: CLS overrate conflict threat

• M: values can be compared

• M: if not, still rational

• M: law not moral authority

The author is describing Meyerson's challenge to the CLS school of thought.

A is incorrect because if it were the purpose, it would have given more emphasis to the position of the CLS rather than focusing mainly on Meyerson's attacks on the CLS.

B is incorrect because there is no explanation of the origins of any controversy in the passage.

C is incorrect because the author does not advocate for anything. The author stays fairly neutral, making it clear that Meyerson's claims are Meyerson's claims.

E is incorrect because the author does not refutation himself; rather, it is Meyerson that is refuting the CLS's claims, and the author is describing her refutations.

B is correct because the point that is demonstrated is that "showing the law to be unambiguous does not demonstrate its legitimacy." What comes after it is the game reference, and it demonstrates how, even though the rules are clear, it is also clear that those rules do not align with our morals. This is used to support the idea that just because the law is clear, is does not necessarily hold moral authority.

A is incorrect because there is no application of a principle described in the game reference; rather, the game reference is used to demonstrate a principle through its implications.

C is incorrect because is it not clear what activity is supposedly unimportant to Meyerson.

D is incorrect because the game situation is not contrasted with the law, but rather, is intended to be similar in a sense.

E is incorrect because there is no accusation of an idea being reprehensible, or deserving of severe blame.

E is correct because it is supported by the low-res summary of the passage:

• M: CLS overrate conflict threat

• M: values can be compared

• M: if not, still rational

• M: law not moral authority

As can be seen, the arguments in the passage are all ascribed to Meyerson, so the main point should take that into account. AC E matches the low-res perfectly, where the claims Meyerson seeks to counter are those that suggest irrationality on the part of orthodox legal theory:

Meyerson argues that CLS proponents tend to see contradictions where none exist, and that CLS overrates the threat that conflict poses to orthodox legal theory.

A is incorrect because the whole passage revolves around the attack to the CLS movement by one particular philosopher, Meyerson, and the fact that she is a philosopher is given no weight at all in the passage.

B is incorrect because there is no critique about overlooking the complexity of actual legal dilemmas. The idea of complexity is not even mentioned in the passage.

C is incorrect because there is no argument presented that the position of the CLS is self-contradictory. One can attack a position without having to argue that the position is internally incoherent.

D is incorrect because there is nothing in the passage that suggests which argument of Meyerson's is the most important. The idea of the hierarchy of values is given equal emphasis as the idea that choosing between equal values is not irrational.

D is correct because the author evokes the example of the Hopi in order to criticize how two influential views "deny that names have any significant semantic content" and that "interpretation of personal names in societies where names have other functions and meanings has been neglected."

A is incorrect because the author does not present any study in the passage. The information about Hopi names is just stated as facts, not as the findings of any particular study.

B is incorrect because the passage is not concerned with the origin of names, but with theories about the function of names. A new theory about the function of names does not need to take into account the origins of the names, and the passage does not do that.

C is incorrect because if it were correct, we would expect to see a lot more about Mill's and Strauss's theories. However, we are instead given a lot more on Hopi names and their implications... i.e. that the two major theories are inadequate.

E is incorrect because the passage is not concerned with the origin of names, but rather the how the functions of names are characterized.

A is incorrect because it is supported by the line: "Equally important, though, is their poetic quality; in a sense they can be understood as oral texts that produce aesthetic delight."

B is incorrect because it is supported by the line: "Furthermore, the images used to evoke these events suggest that Hopi names can be seen as a type of poetic composition."

C is incorrect because it is supported by the line: "Equally important, though, is their poetic quality; in a sense they can be understood as oral texts that produce aesthetic delight."

D is correct because a name's ability to confer identity upon individuals is the thing that Mill claims is the sole purpose of names, and the author argues that he neglects the poetic qualities of certain names; therefore, it cannot be the case that this ability itself contributes to a name's poetic quality.

E is incorrect because it is supported by the line: "This [poetic] view of Hopi names is thus opposed . . . to Mill's claim that personal names are without inherent meaning."

A is correct because it is supported by the lines:

• "Mill's formulation that 'proper names are meaningless marks set upon . . . persons to distinguish them from one another' retains currency . . . Consequently, interpretation of personal names in societies where names have other functions and meanings has been neglected."

• "This view of Hopi names is thus opposed . . . to Mill's claim that personal names are without inherent meaning."

B is incorrect because the author explicitly refers to "other functions and meanings" of names and how the two major theories neglect them. If Mill's view recognized the use of names as instruments of social classification, it would only be a fusion of the two major theories without addressing these other functions and meanings.

C is incorrect because nowhere in the passage does the author suggest that Mill's view "single-handedly led scholars to neglect how names are used outside Europe"; this claim is much too strong to be supported, and it also ignores the other half of the two major theories (i.e. Mill's).

D is incorrect because the author never compares the accuracy of Mill's and Strauss's characterization of the purpose of names. The author's characterization of Hopi names suggests that both are part of the purpose of names.

E is incorrect because the author never compares the relevance of Mill's and Strauss's characterization of the purpose of names. Both are treated as though they are similarly relevant.

D is correct because the first paragraph notes that

Among the Hopi of the southwestern United States, names often refer to historical or ritual events in order both to place individuals within society and to confer an identity upon them.

The second paragraph is more focused on how Hopi names often refer to things, which is basically semantic content. Semantic means:

relating to the meaning or interpretation of words, signs, or language.

So the "little rabbit" example, reflecting the child's size and the representative animal, is precisely a name with semantic content.

A is incorrect because the support for the claim about poetic compositions only appears after the second paragraph. There is nothing inherently poetic about the fact that "a name might translate to something as simple as 'little rabbit,' which reflects both the child's size and the representative animal."

B is incorrect because the example of the name "little rabbit" makes no reference to the events in a child's life. The "little" merely reflects the child's characteristic, and the "rabbit" refers to the animal. It's not like the child has ever went through "rabbit" before.

C is incorrect because the author never argues against the European convention of having one name (nor is this convention even explicitly established in the passage), and so the fact that Hopis receive many names throughout life is not a knock on European naming theories.

E is incorrect because there is nothing obscuring about the literal translation of the provided example "little rabbit"; the name precisely refers to the quality of being "little" and the animal "rabbit."

E is correct because it demonstrates a use of names for social classification:

Claude Lévi-Strauss's characterization of names as being primarily instruments of social classification has been very influential.

A person's occupation can be said to be one of the qualities that classifies that person in society.

A is incorrect because there is no social classification inherent in choosing a child's name from books.

B is incorrect because a name that reflects one's personality or looks does not place them within society in any way, unless there are distinct social structures for ugly people and pretty people (news flash, there aren't).

C is incorrect because naming a child after a family friend or famous person does not confer any social classification onto the child, unless being named Jeff Bezos is a socially recognized indicator of future (or present) fame and fortune.

D is incorrect because family members having no parts of their names in common with other family members actually goes against the idea of names being instruments of social classification, as one would expect a family's members to fall within the same class. Obviously there are countless exceptions, but the point is that AC D is still pulling in the wrong direction.

B is correct because the reference appears in the context:

The condensed image this name evokes . . . displays the same quality of Western Apache place names that led one commentator to call them "tiny imagist poems."

Basically, a certain quality of WA place names led one person to call WA place names "tiny imagist poems."

The author is saying that Hopi personal names display the same quality, implying that the commentator's characterization of "tiny imagist poems" could therefore apply to Hopi names as well.

A is incorrect because the example of how names can contain references not evident in their literal translations is already given in the preceding sentences; this quality the paragraph concludes with is to describe the effect of the non-evident references.

C is incorrect because there is no contrasting going on when the author references Western Apache place names; in contrast, the author is describing how they share "the same quality," which is the opposite of contrast.

D is incorrect because the reference to Western Apache place names is to bolster the author's argument for Hopi names, not to introduce another type of name that "may have some semantic content." In order for AC D to be improved, the passage would have to say something like: "The semantic content characteristic of Hopi names can also be found in the place names of Western Apache."

E is incorrect because the author never claims that any Hopi name refers to any Western Apache site. The author is merely showing how a certain quality of Western Apache place names can apply to Hopi names.

E is correct because it is supported by the low-res summary of the passage:

• names regarded 2 ways; Hopi shows other

• semantic Hopi name examples

• Hopi names: "tiny imagist poems"

• Hopi covers 2 name regards + poetic

Specific lines that support AC E include one from the first paragraph and one from the final paragraph, respectively:

• "[Hopi] names often refer to historical or ritual events in order both to place individuals within society and to confer an identity upon them. Furthermore . . . Hopi names can be seen as a type of poetic composition."

• "Hopi personal names . . . indicate social relationships . . . and they individuate persons. Equally important, though, is their poetic quality."

A is incorrect because the fact that Hopi names perform both functions simultaneously is only a side point to the main point that Hopi names serve other functions. Additionally, the passage is not comparing Hopi names to European names per se, but the different characterizations of what a name does. Just because it was European thinkers that came up with the two major characterizations does not mean that they are only referring to European names; they were meant to apply to all names, and the author is arguing against this.

B is incorrect because the passage explicitly says that "[Hopi] names often refer to historical or ritual events in order both to place individuals within society and to confer an identity upon them." So it is incorrect to say that Hopi names tend to neglect these functions. Although the passage does emphasize the poetic effects, this is referred to as an additional thing that the names do: "Furthermore, the images used to evoke these events suggest that Hopi names can be seen as a type of poetic composition."

C is incorrect because the passage never refers to European's response or even awareness of Hopi names. The fact that the passage argues that Europeans' way of thought neglects something that the Hopi accounts for does not mean that those Europeans are connected to the Hopi in any way besides being in the same passage.

D is incorrect because it is directly contradicted by the line: "One Lizard clan member from the village of Oraibi is named Lomayayva, 'beautifully ascended.' This translation, however, tells nothing about either the event referred to . . . or the name giver's clan."

@zv301 The key is POE. With this mindset, if you can eliminate every wrong answer (and you likely understand each one), then you will know that the one remaining is correct.

Yeahhh I know it can be frustrating! However, if you step back and think about it, 7Sage is actually doing us a favor by exposing us to this more-difficult interface before we'll have to face it on the REAL test.

Now wouldn't that be daunting, if you were only trained in the most convenient interface only to be later hit with, well, what we have now.

E is correct because it is supported by the principle evoked by the judge:

Because the church members were performing a public service in voicing the legitimate concerns of the community, they should be accorded the right to challenge the renewal of the station's broadcasting license.

C is correct because of the lines:

• "The church appealed the FCC's decision in court, and in 1967 was granted the right to a public hearing."

• "The church appealed again, and this time the judge took the unprecedented step of revoking the station's license without remand to the FCC."

• "Subsequent rulings have supported the right of the public to question the performance of radio and television licensees."

These are all instances where the recourse of a citizens' group to the courts made progress for the protection of the public interest.

B is correct because it is supported by the lines:

• "Unless citizens' groups were applying for broadcasting licenses, citizens did not have the standing necessary to voice their views at an FCC hearing."

• "The real reason for denying the church a hearing was more likely the prospect that citizens' groups representing community preferences would begin to enter the closed worlds of government and industry."

• "Subsequent rulings have supported the right of the public to question the performance of radio and television licensees before the FCC at renewal time every three years."

The first quote implies that citizens' groups did not have the standing to speak at FCC hearings unless they are speaking as members of the broadcasting industry.

The second quote claims that the reason for denying the church a hearing was to prevent citizens' groups representing the public to begin entering the "closed worlds of government and industry," which implies that they have not yet entered the industry before.

The third quote affirms that after the United Church of Christ won its case, citizens' groups were able to speak as members of the public at FCC hearings.

A is correct because the last sentence of the passage is preceded by the sentences:

The case established a formidable precedent for opening up to the public the world of broadcasting. Subsequent rulings have supported the right of the public to question the performance of radio and television licensees before the FCC at renewal time every three years.

A is correct because the low-res summary of the passage is:

• FCC history: disregard viewers

• UCC case; raised question

• appeal twice: judge revoke license

• viewers now have say

AC A is firmly supported by the last paragraph of the passage:

The case established a formidable precedent for opening up to the public the world of broadcasting. Subsequent rulings have supported the right of the public to question the performance of radio and television licensees before the FCC . . . Along with racial issues, a range of other matters . . . are now discussed at licensing proceedings because of the church's intervention.

B is correct. If the hypothesis in the stimulus is true, we would expect the various species of animals from the same era and similar to the dinosaurs' physiology and habitat to have been similarly affected by the cooled climate. However, AC B shows that this is not true for those species, and so it weakens the argument by providing evidence that what we'd expect to happen if the hypothesis were true did not happen.

A is incorrect because we have no idea how plausible this other explanation is; it could have been a creationist theory, which would definitely be "significantly different from the comet theory," while doing nothing to hurt the argument.

C is incorrect because the argument does not require that the explanation be supported by a study of dinosaur skeletons; there are plenty of other means to verify or support a theory, such as by studying sediments.

D is incorrect because it is very possible that these other animals were significantly different in physiology compared to the dinosaurs or lived in completely different habitats than the dinosaurs. A cooled climate doesn't imply an unlivable one.

E is incorrect because the hypothesis doesn't require fully understanding consequences for vegetation and animals of a comet colliding with Earth; it is just a hypothesis that is plausible.

D is correct because the customer remarks that "if [she doesn't] choose air express, then [she] will not receive [her] shipment tomorrow," which can be diagrammed as:

/choose-air-express -> /receive-tomorrow

In order to diagram AC D, we negate one clause and make it the sufficient condition of a relationship:

/choose-air-express -> /receive-tomorrow

This matches the customer's remark.

A is incorrect because neither speaker makes any reference to reliability.

B is incorrect because, although the customer does make this interpretation, it is not a misinterpretation, as the shipping coordinator does make this statement.

C is incorrect because, just like for AC B, the customer does make this interpretation, but it is not a misinterpretation.

E is incorrect because the customer doesn't make any statement that assumes this proportional relationship.

B is correct because nothing in the commissioner's statements imply that his recollection about the neighborhood association recommendation is incomplete, nor does she draw any conclusion about the recommendation. The only conclusion she draws in the argument is that she was incorrectly criticized for making a premature decision on the power plant issue.

A is incorrect because she does take for granted that the association's information is not distorted by bias, in that she claims to be sure that the information is accurate without studying it thoroughly.

C is incorrect because she does claim that she was incorrectly criticized for making a premature decision despite having only considered the report by the neighborhood association without demonstrating that this information was adequate.

D is incorrect because she does claim that she is sure the information is accurate despite not having studied it thoroughly.

E is incorrect because she does appeal to the fact that she had agreed with the association's past recommendation before as if it justifies her current agreement. For one, we have no idea if the past agreement was sound, and two, even if so, it was on completely a different subject.

A is correct because it destroys the support structure of the chair's argument. The chair attempts to support the claim that the book was chosen solely for academic reasons using the fact that the textbook committee had given that textbook its highest rating. However, if it is true that the members of the textbook committee were favorably influenced toward the textbook by the prospect of their department receiving a large donation, then the fact that the textbook had the highest rating might have been influenced by this non-academic reason.

B is incorrect because it actually strengthens the chair's position by demonstrating that the chair's appeal to the ratings of the committee is a long-standing practice, reducing potential bias in her choice to appeal to the committee's ratings for this textbook.

C is incorrect because it reduces the potential bias of the department's decision to use the textbook, as using this company is not a first-time thing. Of course, this assumes that in the previous year, the department did not get a donation from the company.

D is incorrect because in order for this to be a weakener, it would have to be assumed that the chair being a member of the committee would favorably influence the rating of the textbook. We don't know who is in charge of giving the textbook its rating, as it was never implied that all members had a say. Even if all members had a say and that the chair was biased in her vote, it still holds that the committee as a whole gave the textbook the highest rating. So in order for AC D to weaken, we would have to assume that the chair was biased and that the chair successfully influenced the ultimate rating given by the committee, which is too many assumptions.

E is incorrect because it is irrelevant what the textbook company routinely does; it still remains the fact that the company made a donation to the department, and the chair needs to defend that their decision to use the textbook is not influenced by the donation.