Assumption is that only this grass makes the caterpillar unpalatable.

The problem I had with B) is the use of "scant evidence that remains." I didn't really feel like that claim was supported by the stimulus so I went with (D), fully knowing that I also didn't like the statement that "research into the history of textiles spurred sweeping changes." I immediately questioned the truth of whether the research into textiles spurred sweeping changes since that's never stated.

When stuck between two answers for a MP question, pick the more general answer that is factually correct. Also realizing now that the claim about there being scant evidence is reasonable. At the very least, we know there is not an abundance of evidence.

I think the crux of the issue here is the use of "outcome." Engle's use of "outcome" implies that he thinks McKinley is saying that the side effects of the drug will tell us whether it is therapeutically effective or not, which is not what McKinley is saying. Engle is interpreting the "various effects on the body" to mean the therapeutic effects aka outcome rather than the side effects whereas McKinley is simply mentioning how side effects of the drug will make the blind study not possible.

I chose (C) as well but I'm realizing that whether the placebo has any side effects or not is irrelevant here. Not only does McKinley not say anything about the placebo having side effects or not, even if it did, the misinterpretation lies in the fact that Engle understands "side effects" to mean "therapeutic outcome" and that is not what McKinley is saying.

This was so tricky!

I picked (D) as well but the reason why D) is wrong because although names serve to "individuate persons," the author describes this individuality and attributing a poetic quality as two "separate things."

Ascribing individuality through names is absolutely mentioned, but notice how it's not mentioned as contributing to the poetic quality of the Hopi names. It serves it's own separate purpose which is why it's wrong. So tricky because "conferring identity" IS stated in the passage, but not for the reason that question 13 is trying to trick us into thinking. I didn't catch this until BR.

Hi! Whenever we see a question stem with "most vulnerable to criticism" we know we know our task is to identify the flaw. With a "least vulnerable" to criticism, we want to find the answer choice that is least applicable. In other words, there will be four answer choices that accurately characterize flaws while there is one that does not characterize a flaw in the argument or at the very least, characterizes a flaw way less accurately than the other four answer choices do.

This was so helpful. Thank you!

Hi! I was drawn to (E) as well. What helped me realize that (E), and all the other answer choices are irrelevant, is really honing in on the structure of the argument, which is C: Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly. Why?

P1: A movie reviewer should help readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy a particular movie and;

P2: A person who is apt to enjoy a particular movie is much more likely to realize this by reading a review by Sartore than Kelly.

Zeroing in on the P&C, the weakness here is that we know Sartore is more likely to help those apt to enjoy a movie to realize this, but what about those who are not apt to enjoy a movie? Does Sartore's reviews also help those who are not apt to enjoy a movie realize this? (C) tells us that he does, which reaffirms the criteria/premise of a good movie reviewer and therefore strengthens the argument. Although (E) may give us an "equal/standardized basis," that's not the point of the argument. The sole premise/criteria is whether someone who is apt or not apt to enjoy a movie is more likely to realize this by reading one of their reviews. If we zero in on the relationship between the premise and conclusion, we can see that whether they review the same movies or not is irrelevant and what matters most is who does a better job of helping readers determine whether they are apt or not apt to enjoy a movie. Hope that helps a little!

Hi! The improvisation isn't explicitly stated but my understanding of the analogy is that the artist (Davis) provides a certain assigned theme and then the photographers (musicians) take pictures related to that theme which implies that the photographers have some ability to improvise/take liberty in what they photograph as long as it aligned with the assigned theme (base script).

Can someone explain to me how (E) is different from (D) #feedback #help Thank you!

I got tricked by this one too. Notice how E) is referencing whether the LAND (property) which the objects (also property) were buried on is considered abandoned. E) focused on the subject of the land being abandoned, rather than the objects being abandoned, and the court case referenced only cares about whether the objects were abandoned, not whether the land/property they are buried on is abandoned. Does that make sense? Super tricky wording!

Thank you for this!

This is my exact situation!

Who wants to make a group chat? I don't use snapchat lol.

I'm interested! I'm taking April and planning on taking June!

Can someone explain to me the sufficient "kicking up" concept? I am confused as to how that works and how that reveals what is wrong with the argument #help #feedback

#help is answer choice (E) wrong for the same reason that (C) is wrong? In other words, it is a causal relationship. The stimulus tells us that if you purchase from telemarketers, they are more likely to target you for more calls.

Unlike the stimulus which tests our ability to pick up on a correlation/causation flaw, like AC (C), AC (E) is establishing a causal relationship and is therefore not flawed in the same way the stimus is. Is this an accurate understanding?

Wow, that was subtle. I needed this video to point out the fact that the psychologist's research is being used as a premise to attempt to prove this conclusion. I find these live classes to be helpful. Thank you!

SAME! I totally skipped over the fact that they're asking about the environmentalist's proposal?

So I had the exact same issue. I'm realizing the more I read it that as you said, answer choice B says nothing about whether or not the technology will become obsolete. It simply says that children can adapt to technological changes. Thanks for your explanation, because it helped me understand too!

I did the same thing. I keep realizing that with these questions, I really need to read SUPER CAREFULLY

I understand why B is the correct answer, as it completely destroys the support between the premise and conclusion. I'm still confused as to why A isn't correct, though. Could anyone explain? #help

I have a question that just arose after watching the explanation for this problem. When we have a weakening/strengthening question with an EXCEPT, is the assumption that the correct answer STRENGTHENS the argument or just doesn't weaken it, which is why it is correct? I have been thinking that if it doesn't weaken it, it automatically strengthens it....which I'm learning is the wrong way to think through 7sage!! Does anyone have thoughts on this/ how to conceptualize weakening/strengthening questions with EXCEPT? #help

B TRAPPED ME SO HARD.

I did the same thing! UGHHH