@ArdenAmarelo I had the same confusion. It's referring to what the author believes. If it was asking what was simply stated, we would have no right answer (all are stated).

@PowerUp_Tutoring I do and I was thinking about that. My only thing is that I would like to take the test on lawhub to ensure I'm familiar with the new interface, and this solution would be more feasible on 7sage. When I had started my PT today, I was having a really hard time adjusting to it (kept glitching on my end, especially with the passages). Still worth looking into though. Thank you!

@Frat you too!

I misread the stimulus here, particularly the part about the cross-examination and it's purpose being to "correct the inaccuracies." I saw this as "inaccurate details that needed to be corrected," not "accuracies." So when the one group witnesses gave more inaccuracies than others, I saw that as they gave fewer inaccuracies in the first examination and more in the second (like listing them out). Which is not right. It's bit convoluted but I essentially kept overthinking what I was looking for.

Here's a scenario that I tried to use to help me get the answer: Imagine two sets of witnesses are being questioned.

First, a lawyer questions the two sets in hopes of getting inaccurate testimonies.

Set A: does what they are asked, provides many inaccuracies in their testimonies.

Set B: provides few inaccuracies

In the cross-examination, a lawyer questions the two sets in hopes of correcting their inaccuracies AKA having accurate testimonies.

Set A: does what they are asked, provides many accuracies in their testimonies.

Set B: provides many inaccuracies (and likely few accuracies).

In both rounds of questioning, Set B refuses to do what the lawyer has asked. It is less likely to be influenced by the questioning than Set A. That's (C).

mperweb mentioned this below, but we're comparing two groups in both rounds (Set A and Set B). I kept thinking we're only comparing Set B to itself and that did not help me see the big picture.

Not sure if anyone had this issue, but I thought the flaw was that "assured of recouping" is not the same as actually recouping, so I chose (D) since "nominated" and "receives" are not necessarily the same. But I see now that the N vs. S flaw was glaringly obvious. Looks like I need to practice.

I had the same question! Thank you for asking!

So I realized while reviewing this question that I actually never understand what P3 under Passage A was talking about. Had to watch J.Y.'s video to better understand.

Let's start with what I know about each passage. Passage A's author thinks flax taxes are practical and fair. Passage B's author believes progresstive taxes are better.

Passage A's P3 (final argument) argues that flat taxes are fair when combined with thresholds. Then it implies that progressive tax systems are complex and offer many ways to avoid taxes. How do we know that progressive tax system = systems in most developed countries? Using context from P2, it would make sense to assume that. Otherwise, where did this new actor come from?

Anyway: the author is basically saying that high-income earners already don't pay as much as they should in progressive systems because of opportunities of avoidance. So in the simpler flat tax systems, they're actually paying the same as they did previously.

What could Passage B's author do to counter this argument? After all, they support progressive taxes. Wouldn't they say that tax avoidance isn't due to the progressive nature of the system, but the complexity? It's never explictly stated as such and correcting that assumption could weaken Passage A. That's why (C) is right.

Here's why the other ACs are wrong (to me, at least):

(A) I originally selected this because I thought that if avoidance is possible via the flat tax system, that would mean it's not fair. Which would go against what Passage A has been saying. But that doesn't necessarily address the final argument. Also, underreporting is never addressed in Passage A. Passage is implying that unlike progressive systems, flat tax systems are simplier and have less chances of avoidance.

(B) Whether others are also avoiding taxes does not affect Passage A, which just happens to talk about high-income earners.

(D) Preference is not relevant.

(E) Eliminating income taxes is not relevant.

I think I need to practice better understanding these types of passages. Process of elimination is helpful but only gets me so far.

I practiced this question untimed. While I got it right, it definitely took some time to wrap my head around the correct approach.

Context: Question: How do we know what objects are real?

Here's an approach: real object <--> suggested by the most explanatorily powerful theory (MEPT).

P: theories -m-> have objects suggested on theoretical grounds.

C: The approach is flawed.

I think the first confusion I had is: what does theoretical grounds and MEPT mean? Are they two seperate topics? Why introduce two different topics and leave a big gap in understanding?

It made more sense to assume that MEPT was part of the overall theoretical grounds that most entities were based upon. It is a "theory" after all. Now to the ACs:

(A) discusses an object that "enhances" something. Enhancement is not discussed in the stimulus, and therefore (A) is wrong.

(B) suggested on theoretical grounds ---> /real objects

This supports our conclusion. Why? If true, it would mean that most theories (which have objects posited on theoretical grounds) do not have real objects. The approach given (real object <--> MEPT) would not be true since MEPT would fall within theoretical grounds.

(C) Focuses on what should not be posited, when the actual focus is on what is or isn't real. Also brings up enhancement.

(D) Other grounds not relevant and similar to (C), (D) focuses on what should be posited.

(E) I didn't read this properly at first and assumed it would actually weaken the argument (I'm actually not sure about this - if someone knows if that could be the case, please do let me know). However, I realize now that it doesn't interact with the premise at all, so would not strengthen the argument.

Also looking for further practice with set/subset like questions... If anyone has any suggestions or feedback, I would appreciate it!

Why did I eliminate the right answer?

I eliminated (B) because I didn't fully understand what the question was asking. The question is asking us to reconcile or make sense of two very different arguments.

Passage's A suggestion is that we should NOT lie to the pathological liar. While Passage B's first paragraph, in which Kant's views are shared, indicates that we CAN lie to rational beings who act immorally to others. Rationality is the entire foundation of Kant's view, but not of the view in Passage A. So with (B), if we say that a pathological liar is not rational, then his actions do not authorize similar actions. Hence, we do not have to lie to the liar.

Why did I choose this wrong answer?

I chose (D) because it was somewhat similar to a statement addressed in the second paragraph of Passage B. And that's the issue: the question focuses on Kant's view in the first paragraph, so why is this right vs duty debate suddenly relevant? Also, Passage A's focus on the pathologial liar does not discuss right otrduty anyway. There's no foundation to challenge. I fell for a trap.

What can I do better next time to get this right?

Remember that when given two conflicting POVs and the request to make them compatible, I'm asking to make sense/reconcile the two.

More practice with short summaries for comparative passages.

Thanks for posting this. I was one of those people who posted being disappointed too. I know it's my first exam so I'm proud of myself for getting to where I am. There's room of improvement but I really do believe I can turn things around for myself. I try not to compare myself to others. There's no point. Everyone has their challenges and we never know what the full story is. If I told my 18 year old self about the things I am doing now, they wouldn't believe me haha. At most, I'm trying to get better for myself because I know I'm capable of putting in the work. I think everyone is doing their best and that's the most important thing. Good luck to everyone!