I know you probably won't see this, but someone else might. You left out an important part of answer choice E: "an appreciation of the problems of wording involved in drafting antiterrorism laws." It sounds like it could fit the "formulating statutes" part of the first sentence in paragraph 1. Nonetheless, it's still a very hard question.

Yes, I believe you are looking at it wrong. I did not understand this at first, either, because I did not realize that the three different ways of interpreting the work (positive model, negative case, and refinement) apply to both the internal national tradition AND the external national traditions. I also did not realize that those three ways of interpretation are thought to be "affecting the development" of the tradition. Still, all of the other questions just sounded incredibly wrong so I was able to narrow it down to E.

So we know that in order for it to be considered world literature, it would need to be interpreted in its own country (U.S.A.) in at least one of three ways that affect the development of tradition AND interpreted in other countries (Canada, Mexico, etc.) in at least one of three ways that affect the development of tradition. Thus, it will not be considered world literature if it affects the development of ONLY ONE national tradition, say the U.S.A. At least Canada and Mexico are necessary (because traditions is plural).

I believe you are misinterpreting E because the "development of one national tradition" is not referring to one of the three different ways. They are referring to ONE national tradition, which is a necessary condition. One internal national interpretation and at least two external national interpretations are NECESSARY. I think you maybe thought that "one" means one of the three different ways of interpreting the work?

I hope this helps! It's a super tricky question.

A is correct because it gets rid of an alternate cause. People who are genetically predisposed to Parkinson's might crave more iron, possibly as a result of the illness or its side effects, etc. If that is true, then limiting iron in the diet probably will not have much of an effect on reducing his or her chances of contracting the disease. Answer choice A eliminates this possibility and states that a person with the predisposition eats about the same amount of iron as a person without the predisposition. Thus, it does seem like it could be the iron that causes Parkinson's and limiting its intake might reduce one's chances of contracting the disease.

I have the same question. I know it wasn't explicitly stated, but it seems to be supported by C and D. I guess profit margin cuts and undermined customer loyalty does not mean you won't have retail success, so that could be why it is wrong.

Actually pretty disappointed in LSAC for this one... I'm thinking of all those logic games or other LR questions I got wrong but should have been correct according to this logic. I'm thinking about a grouping game, specifically: if A and B → C. If A is in AND B is in, then C is in. But the logic of this question is telling me that if only A is in then it triggers C to be in... HOW?? So many answers would be so wrong... the worlds I created would be so pointless.

Even if you take the contrapositive of the logic, /Published → /Important OR /Well Written, you only need one of those necessary assumptions to be true. But answer choice A seems to be saying that if it is not published then it must not be important. But it could be important and still not published according to the stimulus!

I read somewhere that if it is important AND well written, then it is still important. So that's why A is correct. Smh.

I agree with you. I read below, and the overall consensus is that we just have to make that reasonable assumption. I thought B was correct because they were able to estimate the accumulation of global CFC before, so why couldn't they figure it out for 1987? Maybe there was some formula they can use to figure it out. This question was too obvious that it completely tricked me into some convoluted explanation for why B is correct. lol

Thanks for the clarification! These questions are hard for me, so I had to make sure I was understanding correctly.

I totally agree with you all. A is so weak and does not account for an entire decade. How was the deer population increasing so dramatically for 10 years if the pesticides that adversely affected most wildlife were still legal?

I thought D was correct because wolves born in captivity may not be able to hunt as effectively as if they were born in the wild. But perhaps because it only says born in captivity, not raised, would mean we can't assume it had an impact on their hunting skills. And that the adult wolves giving birth are only there to give birth. We can't assume they are there for a long enough period of time to affect their hunting patterns.

So I guess A does enough... even if there was an entire decade with pesticides, the 1970's until now is a long time and it could overall be a dramatic population increase even though from 1960-1970 it barely increased, if at all.

I think you have misinterpreted the meaning of mutualism. Here, mutualism is the same thing as symbiosis. If you look at the first sentence of the first paragraph, it says that symbiosis is "a mutually beneficial relationship."

The author's criticism is that parasitic interactions do not always eventually lead to symbiosis because sometimes symbiosis leads to parasitism. The last sentence says "...it appears that fungi can evolve toward [symbiosis/mutualism] and then just as easily turn back toward parasitism."

Author's criticism: Both P → S AND S → P can occur.

Answer choice E weakens the author's criticism by suggesting that when going from S → P, the fungi usually dies. Therefore, S → P usually DOES NOT work (since the fungi died and the branch no longer continues), so the only other option is P → S. This weakens the author's criticism by strengthening "... the long standing evolutionary assumption that parasitic interactions inevitably evolve over time to... symbiosis" which is P → S.

I had no idea what this was talking about during my test. I think this is the hardest question I have come across. I even made the connection on the inference, but I was so thrown off I didn't realize those were answers that could be true.

To continue the trend of asking every two years...

Any similar questions?

#help

Wow #27 was so subtle.

Wow... I thought D was too obvious of an answer so I didn't pick it. I've been doing tests in the 30's and 40's so these answers are definitely worded a bit differently than I'm used to. Ironically, I got all of the really hard questions on PT 60 correct but missed 3 of the easy to medium questions. I think the older tests really prepare you for the harder questions on the later tests, at least for LR.

Tip: Make sure you vary your practice tests before your actual test because they are all so different!

So did I! I thought it was way too obvious to be the answer, so I second guessed myself.

Good question! Answer choice A says that he fails to consider that there may be more than one joker. This means that it could be Miller AND someone else who could have written the letter.

The conclusion Franklin makes is that it cannot be Miller in any way since the handwriting is different, so it must be someone else. He assumes that if the handwriting is not Miller's, then Miller didn't do it. But Miller still could have done it with the help of another person, which could mean at least two people could have done it.

"Another" does not necessarily mean "more than one." He just thinks it was someone other than Miller.

I hope I could explain this in a way that makes sense!

This question is such good practice!

I got the correct answer, but can someone explain why B, C, and E are "obviously" wrong, as JY stated? I would like to understand how to eliminate bad answer choices quicker in parallel questions. Thanks. #help

I agree with you. It was a pretty tough answer because none of them seemed to be reasonably attributable to the experts all the way from line 32. However, upon reading that last paragraph again, the author made points directly in response to what the experts proposed. They said unauthorized digitalization should just be illegal, and everything the author said in the rest of the paragraph just explains how difficult it would be to make it illegal - referring back to what the experts proposed. So really the whole last paragraph refers back to the experts.

A is the only answer choice that does not come completely out of left field. Answer choice B says that it "should be considered a crime, even when done for private study or research." But how would we even know that is what the experts feel? There is nothing in that entire paragraph that even alludes to unauthorized digitalization for private study or research being considered a crime. C, D, and E also all make inferences that are in no way mentioned in the paragraph.

Answer choice A is the only one that can be "most reasonably attributed to" the experts. Further down in the paragraph it says that "current copyright law allows exemptions for private study or research," and the experts "propose adding unauthorized digitalization to the list of activities proscribed under current law." So the experts would in fact not consider making it illegal to use for private study or research because it is allowed under current law. Whatever current law is, the experts just think it should follow under that.

I hope this helped! It is a very tough question.

Thank you! That does help make it not sound as dumb lol.

Ahh thank you! They could be the same thing, but they also might not be.

I have a question about what JY said the two answers could be. I completely understand why SA ‑m→ F works, but he also said SA → F would work as an answer, as well. Wouldn't that be an incorrect answer, though? The stimulus clearly says, "Not all skilled artists are famous."

He removed the part of the stimulus that said /F ←s→ SA for explanation purposes, but if SA → F could be the right answer, as well, doesn't that contradict the stimulus?

#help

But I think "some cats are NOT furry" is the same thing as "some cats ARE furry." I believe each statement implies the other. #help

I know JY said the argument never said it was possible for schools to disappear. But I thought the argument was saying that since books were included in the traditional school, if they are replaced with electronic media then the traditional schools would disappear. Which is a flaw and is why I chose C. I also thought the argument was saying just the "traditional" school would disappear because the books were required for "traditional" school. It doesn't mean schools wouldn't exist at all, just not traditionally. #help

I understand why D is correct, but I am having a hard time understanding why C is incorrect. #help

Thank you both so much! Don’t know why I didn’t see it before. Lol duh