I translated AC-D to be "One is neither wise nor intelligent" which definitely could be true based on my initial thought "there is at least one person out there that is neither wise nor intelligent", but although that sounds right when speaking to someone casually, in conditional logic it is saying "If there is someone, then they are neither wise nor intelligent" which absolute cannot be true based on who the essayist has met.

So by JY's explanation there is some implied domain that we were supposed to kick up? Domain: Large institution without maximally realistic planning

I feel like mapping this one got me into trouble.

At first I did Planning Committee members <-s-> Have significant financial interest in the committee's decisions. But I changed it to Those committee members representing the construction industry -> Have significant financial interests. This way I could chain the conditionals:

Those committee members representing the construction industry -> Have significant financial interests -> /Live in suburbs.

I guess I thought the em dashes were saying that the "some committee members" was referring to those who represent the construction industry.

I mean it is basically right, its just AC-E is better because it says "some" and does not make that distinction.

Why is everyone saying AC-A should be correct? If this were true, there would probably be a dramatic increase, and then a dramatic decrease in the population of plankton... and if that is what the question was trying to tease out, it would have given more hints in the stimilus.

AC-C being correct is ridiculous and demands a better explanation than what has been given. If the stimulus had said "They expected the rate to increase dramatically, but the population remained the same" I would feel more comfortable choosing AC-C. It provides support for why the plankton population did not increase. However, I do not see how it supports the decrease in the population? Just because something is utilized does not mean it is necessary.

That leaves AC-A, which is not a perfect answer at all, but I think it logically fits better than any of the other answer choices.

Bad question and bad explaining from our 7Sage tutors. You need to do better here.

I got this wrong on both actual and BR. I re-read Willet's sentence "since there is nothing new in this idea of restricting growth..." I think the phrase "this idea" is describing the general idea of restricting growth. I read it as the idea of zoning regulations. Therefore, he is not addressing the fact that despite restricting growth being an idea a decade old, there are new reasons to restrict growth now.

That is really really annoying.

AC-A seemed like the trap answer choice to me. It felt like the term "long distance" was used ambiguously. My immediate thought was maybe the car is only able to reach up to 300,000 total miles because the car is driven short distances at a time. Who is to say it would not break down if you tried to drive one long distance, which is what is implied in the conclusion... "drive it for a very long distance". Or you might say that is not what the author implies, which is my point exactly. It is an ambiguous use of the term.

AC-A seemed like the trap answer choice. It seemed obvious that at first glance, it is an unrepresentative sample. But it felt like this would be the weaker counter to the argument, although objectively correct.

How is AC-A correct? Aren't wintering birds "migratory"?

I chose AC-A because I keyed in on the "...identifying nightmare-prone children". Doesn't this heavily imply that psychologists need to find why some children have nightmares when others do not? Still confused on the reason that this is wrong. How does it not lead to the conclusion?

Did anyone else choose AC-D? I initially selected this because the author starts off their analysis of Bettelheim with a question about why fairytales are therapeutic. I do not see, after asking that question, any indication of the author being in agreement with this.

Is this a correct analysis?

Joseph: If the theorem is not provable, then Fermat is lying or mistaken.

Contrapositive to Joseph's logic: If Ferman is not lying nor mistaken, then the theorem is provable.

Laura: The theorem is provable, therefore Fermat is not lying nor mistaken.

Laura's logic: If Fermat is lying or mistaken, then the theorem is not provable.

Contrapositive to Laura's logic: If the theorem is provable, then Fermat is not lying nor mistaken.

Notice how Laura's logic does not match with Joseph's, showing the sufficient and necessary confusion.

I have the same thoughts about AC-E, which I chose at first. But after reading, despite the passage stating that the benefit to Hollywood was not the main feature, does not necessarily mean that it did not benefit Hollywood? I think this is a bit of a stretch, and I feel like in other questions J.Y. would have eliminated an answer choice based off that alone.

@yaelbeeee I completely agree. The author literally says,

"There are indications that plumage probably does signal broad age-related differences in status among Harris sparrows: adults, usually dark throated, have higher status than juveniles, who are usually light throated; moreover, juveniles dyed to resemble adults are dominant over undyed juveniles. However, the Harris sparrows' age-related plumage differences do not signal the status of individual birds within an age class, and thus cannot properly be included under the term "status signaling.""

How is that not more than enough evidence to prove AC-A?

I am surprised to see that AC-E got such few responses. I chose AC-E because it serves as a pretty good counter to the pro-bankruptcy, non-punitive argument. If the members of the enterprise are just as responsible as the owner, then this would help to explain why punitive measures are necessary, even if it negatively impacts the employees of the company, which is one of the pro-bankruptcy side's chief concerns. I understand it is not a very good argument, but it logically follows the defender's point. Am I understanding this correctly?

@amhuynh I think it is confusing because the "When" in sentence 2 signals a sufficient condition is about to be stated, "over nutrification of estuary waters" and thereby "algae proliferates" is the necessary condition. If you take the contrapositive, it looks very similar to (D).

3/3 on my actual take, and 1/3 on my blind review. This strategy is making me overcomplicate things