y'all ... as a former astrophysics major... getting this one wrong hurts particularly bad. gaslit myself into not using the most universally known fact about light speed because i thought it was a trap

heck yeah!!! absolutely!!

ok i have a translation and my own spin on the vid's method:

basically: if most serious enviro problems can be solved by being economically enticing (EE), that leaves only a few (aka not most) serious enviro problems that are not caused by government mismanagement, since only serious enviro problems not caused by gov mismanagement can be solved by being EE

even simpler: if most enviro probs can be solved by being econ enticing, then it leaves room for only a few enviro probs are caused by gov mismanagement.

now, the thing is, you don't even need to translate few to not most, or to anything at all.

"few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing."

-so what few problems are solvable without EE then?

-we know every serious eco prob that's non gov related can be solved by being EE

-meaning: only gov related problems can be solved by NOT being EE

-as it stands, with no EE incentives, the only problems that can be solved are gov related ones

-conclusion says amount of problems that can not be solved by being EE are "few"

-so: "few" only refers to problems not solved by being EE

-not EE probs are only non gov related problems

-"few" only refers to gov related problems

-"few serious eco problems are the result of gov mismanagement" aka AC A

ok map time:

"few... solved" is FS, and kept the others from the video:

reminder: S/gEP → C → EE

conclusion: "few serious ecological problems will be solved (FS) unless the solutions are made economically enticing (EE)."

FS → /EE

/EE → /C → /S/gEP

we negated so remove the / from the government related g in S/gEP and we get:

/EE → /C → SgEP

combine:

FS → /EE → /C → SgEP

FS → SgEP

i did FS instead of just solved (S) because it helps keep in mind what the goal is, to find out what the current few enviro problems solvable with no EE incentives are, and not mix it up with enviro problems that could be possible if there was EE. You can think of FS as few solvable too if that helps

sorry this is long shout out if u made it this far i love u. and if it makes no sense i am v tired and borderline delirious, in part bc i spent way too long figuring this all out so shout out to u if u understand what im getting at i love u x2

Q6 only refers to the CAW (Canadian Auto Workers) Legal Services Program. Department stores are mentioned as creating their own (aka separate) in-house program because they saw how successful the CAW one was. It is only mentioned to highlight that CAW's program is so successful other companies are copying it. CAW is just the inspiration and model. Also, the stimulus states CAW is said to be for active and retired autoworkers and their families, while the department store one is for card holders, two different companies, two different groups.

yes, i think in the vid when he says "but [AC E doesn't] say if it is tolerated," it means two things:

both A AND AJ could have been mentioned and that would make (2) true, because then IT would be true

-OR-

if AC E just plainly said "these inequalities are tolerated" (aka IT) it would have also automatically made (2) true, because A AND AJ would be true

but as it is, only AJ was mentioned, not A nor IT, and either of those would have made E the correct AC

there seems to be confusion both over what counts as spending or not and over A as a legit correct answer. i was confused too and got this wrong (i picked B), but i was focusing on the wrong thing. my logic was finding out why the savings accounts could be staying the same AND be spending money at the same rate while not making new purchases. this is not what the question is asking you (or me) to do.

first, "spending" in the stimulus is referring specifically to NEW PURCHASES. money going to family and money paying off debts are not new purchases, so they don't count as "spending." they are essentially in the same category as hiding money under a mattress when it comes to the defined limits in the stimulus. the conclusion is countering the first sentence, and the first sentence only mentions spending on new purchases, meaning when the conclusion references spending, it's specifically new purchases spending, because thats in the original claim the author is trying to counter.

remember, we're fighting for the conclusion here. we have to prove they ARE making NEW PURCHASES, not squirreling the money away (ie, NOT paying off debts quicker or giving money to family laid off) in order to explain why more money isn't going into savings.

the author says spending on new products hasn't decreased, so we need to help that conclusion. savings haven't gone up as we know. but what if money is going elsewhere? thats the loophole, and what you need to guard against. the answer choice that essentially says "the money isn't going elsewhere" is our correct answer, in this case, A

ik your reply is two years old now but just in case this helps someone now/ in the future: the order of this does not matter on this question. the AC could have also read: "other things being equal, the inferior of the two competing theories is the more complex one" and still be correct whilst following the "inferior-> more complex" order. we could think of it as "inferior= more complex ↔ more complex= inferior" or "superior= simpler ↔ simpler= superior." go back to the part of the vid for AC D (around 3:54) and he even says "they said it in sort of the opposite"