For #6, could A also be wrong because it says "If a judicial DECISION is problematic" which misrepresents what the author is saying? The author says the decision is "justly celebrated" but that it is the LEGAL RATIONALE that is problematic...not the decision?

Stealing this explanation as to why answer choice is E from somewhere else in the internet:

This is a really clever stimulus, in that it plays on a subtle but key shift in language/ideas from the premise (aerobics classes vs weight training) to the conclusion, which is no longer about aerobics classes, but rather about aerobic exercise. So when the conclusion states, causally, that aerobic exercise helps the body handle psychological stress based on the stress levels of the two groups, the connection required—the assumption, in other words—is that the group in the aerobics classes got more aerobic exercise than did the group taking weight-training classes!

That's one of the sneakiest Supported Assumption constructs I've seen in a while, where you need to recognize that taking aerobics classes doesn't necessarily guarantee more aerobic exercise than you'd get with weight training (both via the programs themselves, and outside of them), and then the answer closes that gap by ensuring that the aerobics classes group did indeed get more aerobic exercise.

Note to the power of the Assumption Negation Technique on (E): if the volunteers in the aerobics classes did NOT get more aerobic exercise, i.e. they did not get more of the thing the author believes is the cause of their lower-stress response, then arguing that extra aerobic exercise led to less stress doesn't make any sense and the conclusion falls apart! So as always that test really helps confirm that (E) is the winner here

Question - As you do the blue squiggly lines throughout the passage, is that how you would annotate the passage in a test? You've mentioned before that you would do very little notation...Does this count as very little? I want to gauge the amount!

Stopping to summarize mentally seems like such an obvious thing to do -- But it's so easy to get carried away by pressure and time and instead, focus on getting through the passage even if you have no idea of what you just read.

The low-res summaries really make all the difference in understanding the passages. I'm so shocked!

So, I was between D and A but ultimately chose A for a slightly different reason (that I'm not sure is the same as catching the flaw that proving a premise false means its conclusion is false).

I thought it more like: D may weaken the hypothesis that LHB happened throughout inner solar system. But, does weakening one hypothesis automatically strengthen an alternative hypothesis? No. So I chose A after confirming it would strengthen.

Am I totally off base here?

I think here I would eliminate the answer choices I know the author of Passage A has no opinion on (and so can't agree or disagree).

Where can I see a glossary of what all the tags mean? #help

It would be great to get an explanation using lawgic. Although I see intuitively why D is correct, I'm still not sure when I should use lawgic or not.... I was focused on using lawgic and get the answer wrong.

But when I just read it and think it through, I feel like th answer is very obvious.

Is anyone else having this issue??

I totally missed that the diagnosis suggested by the medical physician was the medical condition filled in. In my head, I thought that at the end, the medical physician gave them the answer or something :/

Any tips on how to not make that jump again?

Someone let me know if this is way out there. I got it wrong on the first try, but correct on the blind review. I feel like I know why it's right intuitively but am having trouble understanding it through "lawgic."

Correct answer is B because it directly serves as a counterexample to the stimulus conclusion that once humans are aware of cognitive faculties, they won't be made happy by anything else. B says they actually are made happiER by a non-cognitive thing (physical).

What's getting tricky for me is trying to explain it using lawgic:

GCF = gratification of cognitive faculties

H= happy

C: /GCF --> /H ; H --> GCF

Answer B weakens it because it shows that something else other than GCF leads to H.

Any help on finishing this thought using lawgic?

For this question, I had some trouble parsing through all the extra language and didn't go back to make sure I understood the stimulus fully.

Here, I didn't notice that the stimulus switched up from talking bout "nuclear plants" to "industrial plants." In general, I have a hard time catching these subtle changes in language that almost always end up being key to choosing the right answer.

P = Rate of injury in nuclear plant is half rate of injury in all industrial plants.

C = Plant was safer to work in than most other plants workers could be employed in.

I was surprise to hear JY say that Weaken Qs aren't the type of Qs you can anticipate answers for. I was thinking the answer would have to do with calling into question the accuracy of the rate OR the comparison in plant that I originally missed.

My thought process in eliminating wrong answers & choosing the right answer:

P: Failure of foot to assume natural arch...

C: Flat-footedness is treated by wearing special shoes.

I'm thinking the AC will attack the special shoes treatment since it's talking about "efficacy"

A - Gives me info on normal-footed kids I don't need to know

B - Talks about flat-footed adults which has nothing to do with P & C

C- I feel like this one is tempting so I left it encircled although it was sketchy that it did not mention anything about the special shoes

D - Yes! If the same results can be reached without wearing the special shoes...Then maybe special shoes aren't the answer to flat-footedness

E - Again, gives me info on non-flat footed kids I don't need to know.

For the main idea question (#22), did anyone else knock off A & D because they couldn't find information in the passage that states the contractual features were specifically designed with the intention of protecting women's rights? I know historians think it reflected the changing views of democracy & property but I'm not sure how you could jump to assuming that the explicit intent of adding the contractual features in marriage settlements was "protecting women's property rights."

So if I understand this correctly: The main flaw is that the argument compares two different groups of people

-Those that drink 3 glasses of wine daily

-Binge drinkers

So it's kind of an apple =/ oranges flaw.

I second the request for a more thorough explanation of answer choice C if it's possible!

My difficulty came from the super complicated stimulus. This is what I have after some thinking:

Context: 3 year old fossils only ever found in ocean-floor sediments were discovered under ice sheet covering Antartica (which has been covered by ice for the last 14 years).

Premise: A possible explanation for finding the fossils is that the ice sheet melted which could have happened through severe climatic warming or volcanic activity. My mistake here was not understanding that the "COULD" refers to the ice sheet and NOT the two reasons listed.

Conclusion: Antarctica ice sheet MUST have temporarily melted.

E - It's correct because the premise presents a hypothesis (the ice sheet COULD have melted) and mistakes it as the only solution (the ice sheet MUST have melted).

I blame the stupid stupid wording of this stimulus.

Can anyone point me to the lesson in the Core Curriculum where we're taught how to negate "some" statements? I'm completely blanking.

I got tripped up on this because for me "rejecting as false the belief.." read as a double negative lol.

I got the correct answer but was deciding between C and E. The "resulting injuries" phrasing of E made me suspicious because IMO resulting injuries =/ rescues of mountain climbers (unless we assume the rescues are because of injuries?) I was thinking rescues as they get in a tricky spot or something.