For AC E, I didn't interpret "With regard to the scientific objection, it should be noted that while many attempts to regulate language have failed, some have succeeded. Descriptivists may respond that in the latter cases the usages favored by prescriptivists were in accordance with the laws governing linguistic change and would have prevailed without their assistance. But this is in large measure an article of faith. In the end it must be acknowledged that the laws governing the transformation of language are not like the laws of physics. Language usage depends on choices made by individuals, who are subject to persuasion." as the author saying that the successful attempts are evidence that individuals will make linguistic choices in response to persuasion, so much as the author saying that they couldn't be dismissed as evidence of that.

I chose AC E over AC B. I've come around to AC B being right, describing my reasoning below.

We're looking for the AC that strengthens the position of (1) the draft convention in PB and (2) the critics of for-profit archeology in PA. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that both AC E and AC B would strengthen (1). So let's focus on which would strengthen (2).

What we know about the position of critics of for-profit archeology:

• they care about "archaeological integrity"

• they "abhor the sale of recovered artifacts" because it "inhibits scholarly analysis and public display"

Ok, so things that would strengthen their position are things that would show that the sale of recovered artifacts inhibits scholarly analysis and public display.

Does AC B strengthen their position?

AC B: Selling artifacts that have substantial archaeological value encourages the looting of archeological sites by nonscientists.

This gives us an additional negative impact of selling recovered artifacts -- it encourages nonscientists to come in and take other stuff. This seems to threaten "archaeological integrity" pretty directly. Also, whatever is looted is probably unable to undergo "scholarly analysis" or be "publicly displayed."

So basically, it's another mechanism by which selling items can --> "inhibit[ing] scholarly analysis and public display."

The caveats: (i) this only happens when items are sold of "substantial" value. (ii) it only "encourages" the looting, doesn't guarantee it. (iii) we have to make the small assumption that looting disrupts scholarly analysis, archeological integrity, public display.

Even weighing the caveats, seems like it strengthens their position a fair bit. (i) and (ii) go to magnitude, not direction. and (iii) is a pretty miniscule leap, that even in the most adversarial read is neutral for the critics' position.

Does AC E strengthen their position?

AC E. Excavating valuable cargo and artifacts almost always involves disturbing human remains.

This also gives an additional negative impact of selling recovered artifacts (given that excavating them is almost certainly a prerequisite for selling them) -- it causes the disturbance of human remains. This seems to threaten scholarly analysis. And it happens "almost always" (versus AC B happening for a subset of indeterminate size).

HOWEVER, the caveats are (i) this excavation may happen for non-commercial purposes (e.g. for public display, which the critics are in favor of), so unclear that selling actually makes it worse. (ii) we don't know whether the critics actually care about the disturbance of human remains. Does that disturbance further inhibit scholarly analysis? Maybe.

With the caveats, it's quite unclear whether this would actually strengthen or weaken or have no effect on the critics' position. (i) is truly unknown, and could affect the direction of this AC's influence on the position, not just magnitude (maybe scholarly analysis and public display --> more excavation of valuable items than just selling does), (ii) we don't know that human remains are helpful for the scholarly analysis the archaeologists are concerned with (and in the most natural read -- archaeology is the study of artifacts, so far from clear that they'd be super concerned with human remains).

@bensmothermon639 This is almost certainly too late to be helpful to the OP but responding for my own sake and in case it's helpful to anyone else.

A clarification, in the most straightforward sense, means making more clear/precise/comprehensible information that's already given. E.g. I love Georgia -- the state, not the country. This clarifying info makes the statement easier to understand, but doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true that I am in fact in Georgia.

This can get a little fuzzy with "support" because, often, almost any premise offered to support a causal conclusion will, incidentally, help the reader understand why the causal claim is sensible. You could argue that fits within the definition of "clarifying" -- it makes the conclusion more comprehensible because we understand more about why it's believed to be true.

E.g. I love Georgia (because) my family lives there. This info clearly gives some evidence for why I love Georgia. You could argue it also adds clarification by making the statement easier to understand, but I think that's not quite the natural meaning of clarification.

Applying to this question. Does the statement "an activity as profound and engrossing as writing poetry can be depressing" would have to make the claim "many poets are made melancholic by poetry" more precise/comprehensible? I think it only does if you stretch "clarification" to include "support" -- it helps clarify in that it helps the reader understand why the claim is sensible-- but as I went through above, I think this (1) stretches the definition of clarification and (2) ignores that fact that you only reach "clarification" through "support," thus the AC that simply labels it as support is preferable.

@lsatbaddie thanks I found your response on A helpful!! I’m still a bit stuck on the “risk of pursuing legal action” seeming like it includes more than “not recovering costs and not being able to pay lawyer's fees)”. Is that just the generally accepted definition? Or do you think that’s the most natural read?

I think B, C, and D can all be construed to weaken. But I think D weakens the most.

P: One of the figures in the battle scene painting (1350) closely resembles Artist X's self-portrait (also 1350).

C: Likely that Artist X painted the battle scene as well.

AC B: Most of the figures in the battle scene painting resemble real people from history.

[assuming that (1) "history" is from our perspective and thus Artist X can be included in "people from history"-- a sort of unnatural read (2) the actual painter included a bunch of randos from his peer group + his history (3) one of those randos was Artist X]

then this gives a potential alternate explanation for why Artist X was included as a figure (because the actual painter drew inspiration from a bunch of real people)

That said, just look at how many assumptions were made there. All to get to "a potential alternate explanation" that doesn't do anything to make the original explanation less likely. It could just as easily be true that most of the figures resemble real ppl from history, and Artist X painted it.

AC C. It was not uncommon in the Renaissance for painters to use live models in depicting people in their paintings.

[assuming that (1) Artist X was also a live model, (2) the artist for the battle scene painting used live models, (3) Artist X happened to be a live model for this specific painting, and (4) the live models were used for their specific features not just their general forms]

then this gets to a potential alternate explanation for why Artist X was included in battle scene painting (because the actual painter used them as a live model).

Again, look how many assumptions were needed all to get to a potential alternate explanation that doesn't do anything to make the original explanation less likely. It could just as easily be the case that it's not uncommon for live models to be used, and Artist X painted the battle scene.

AC D. Would have been a violation of etiquette for so young an artist to include himself among aristocrats in a painting of a historic battle.

[assuming that (1) it being a violation of etiquette makes it slightly less likely that the artist would do it than in the counterfactual world where it does not violate etiquette.]

then this weakens the likelihood of the explanation given.

There is an assumption, but it seems really small and reasonable compared to the others.

I got D through POE but I'm not fully convinced that it's accurate. It says that the argument uses courts being hesitant as evidence, but the relevant part of the passage states that "Primarily for this reason, neither the Supreme Court nor lower courts later applied Shelley's approach." Doesn't the "primarily for this reason" mean the author is essentially asserting that the courts' hesitancy is caused by they faulty reasoning (and not that the courts' hesitancy is evidence of faulty reasoning?).

It's like if I said:

I love coffee. And, primarily for this reason, I avoid wearing white.

And you said "you're using the fact that you avoid wearing white as evidence that you love coffee"

@bella_nova ok here's where I've gotten to for anyone else hung up on this.

Does PB address "how music is affected when it is combined with words"?

Yes, it addresses an instance of how music is affected when combined w/ words when it discusses that music + poetry create an opera's character. It does not discuss how music generally is affected, but that's alright.

Contrast that with the broad-to-narrow reasoning for AC D.

Does PA address whether music should ever be subordinated to words with which it is combined? It says that as a medium for emotion good ends arise from combining music and words only when words are subordinate. But that doesn't address whether they ever should be in any circumstance.

I'm really struggling to see how PB addresses "how music is affected when it is combined with words". I think the line that comes closest is "It is this union [of music and poetry]—further enriched and clarified by the visual action—that results in opera's inimitable character."

In other words music, when combined with words, results in opera's inimitable character.

I can see how that's PB addressing how operatic music is affected by being combined with poetry, but that seems narrower than the AC demands (music generally affected with combined with words).

@MatthewTodd it seems like that line ("Similarly, the poetry is good not because it reads well by itself but primarily if, while embodying a sound dramatic idea, it furnishes opportunity for effective musical and scenic treatment.") is about how (the goodness) of words are affected by (whether they furnish the opportunity for) music. Not how music is affected by its combination with words

@Sgargiulo that sounds like it could be a great match, thank you!! would you be willing to message me her contact info?

@ScienceAlex thank you this is super helpful, i'll give this a go!

@ehritchin495 this is the exact q I had and i find this explanation super helpful. To crystallize it further by applying that distinction to the ACs.:

My interpretation is that AC B is in line with the info in the passage. As ehritchin495 says, "adults are bad at telling you how they think". I think this is reasonably equatable to AC B "Adults are more likely than children to give inaccurate reports of their thought processes."

But that doesn't matter, because the question is NOT "what is inferable from the passage" it is "what is inferable about why they chose kids for the experiment". It is not clear how adults being bad at describing how they think would make them bad test subjects per se, because the benefit the kids gave was that they made errors in identifying their own thought. Not that they were especially good at describing their thought process relative to adults (we honestly don't even really know if that's true from the info in the passage).

@Steve that's helpful, thank you!

@RishabhRaj I agree with you. Copyright is a subset of IP protection. So the textual support "every copyrightable work" is narrower/different than the AC "any work entitled to intellectual-property protection". (for example, trademarking a slogan is a type of IP protection, but distinct from copyright).

BUT (and it's a big but) -- the other ACs are clearly and indefensibly wrong. I've seen a couple of other qs like this, where the right answer is a little sloppy. The important thing is to get rid of the unpalatable answers, and if there's one left that you hate but it's palatable, it's right.

I understand why AC C is required, but I'm not sure why AC B is not.

Stim:

engineering = only thing capable of analyzing the nature of the machine in terms of the successful working of the whole.

physics and chemistry (1) can determine the material conditions needed for this success BUT (2) cannot express the notion of purpose [success].

physiology = only thing capable of analyzing the nature of the organism in terms of the healthy functioning [successful working] of the body [whole].

physics and chemistry cannot grasp the way organs operate [GAPS: (1) ____ (2) ___ ]

AC B. physics and chemistry can determine the material conditions needed for good physiological functioning.

this is trying to match (1) can determine the material conditions needed for this success

does "good physiological functioning" = "successful working of the whole"

I think so, at least in the analogy, because it also seems to equate "healthy functioning of the body" to "successful working of the whole". And "good physiological functioning" seems pretty similar to "healthy functioning of the body"

AC C. The notion of purpose used to judge success of machinery has an analog in organisms.

If that's not true, then there's no way the physiology analogy can fulfill physics and chem (2) , so I can see how this is a required assumption.

I think AC C strengthens a little, but AC D clearly strengthens more.

S: in 80% of recordings w parent singing to their infant v no infant, psychologists could identify.

C: Correct that parents' emotion while singing to their infants noticeable affects the sound of their singing.

AC C. displayed little emotion when singing to no infant.

I think this moderately strengthens by ruling out the scenario in which parents displayed a LOT of emotion when singing to no infant, making it more feasible that they FELT a lot of emotion when singing to no infant.

AC D. When someone feels emotion, they have an involuntary response that impacts the vocal chords.

This provides a causal mechanism by which the support may have led to the conclusion, that strengthens a lot.

I understand why A, B, D, and E don't strengthen the argument. However, I'm stuck on how C can be right when it doesn't seem to strengthen the bond between the support and conclusion (which I'm under the impression, from lessons and other q's explanations, is necessary for a strengthen AC to be right).

The argument:

S: More sunlight reflected means cooler atmosphere.

S: Snow and ice reflect more sunlight than ocean and uncovered land.

C: More of Earth's surface covered with snow and ice means cooler atmosphere.

AC C: Ocean and land heated by sunlight actually warm the Earth's atmosphere.

I can see how this would strengthen the conclusion by giving another way that more snow and ice coverage --> cooler atmosphere. But I do not see how it strengthens the bond between the support and the conclusion.

I think if I had viewed this as an NA I would have gotten it right, but since it was a MS I overlooked AC B as too narrow to be much help.

Looking back, if I think that AC B is indeed a NA, then having it would be pretty helpful to argument. After all, by adding it you eliminate the scary world where you it's false (in which case the argument would be invalid).

It is pretty narrow, so if there had been an AC that went further to strengthen that could have been right, but that isn't the case with these ACs.

@CamilleHodgkins I was going to make this exact comment. I think the key is whether we're talking about just the set of birds that migrates in the fall, or the set of birds that migrates in the fall and (separately) the set of birds that returns in the spring.

Rephrasings to illustrate the difference:

one set (subsumed)

"Many of the birds that migrate south in the fall do not return in the spring"

two sets

"Many birds that migrate south in the fall are not the same as those who return in the spring."

To me, the current phrasing seems nearly identical to the former (indicating that there is one set of birds we're concerned with -- those that migrate south in the fall, and then of those some don't return). So, I think the visual in the video is inaccurate.

This is a q where I needed to read the AC more closely -- and should have been tipped off to do so by the fact that both D and C seemed somewhat reasonable

I chose C by eliminating the other answer qs, but I think it requires a not insignificant assumption: that the author thinks usually firms shouldn't be put out of business. All the text says is that the "astronomical penalties" might put the convicted companies out of business, and that this is reason to add another criterion.

But couldn't it be that the author thinks it's sometimes justified for the company to be put out of business (say, if the community opinion of the crime is particularly drastic, or the company doesn't employ very many workers)?

@embino This was my main struggle with this q. That said, looking back there are multiple references to geographic range:

• the units were "in cities spread throughout the United States"

• discussion of folk dramas exploring rural themes vs urban realistic dramas.

• "reflected the genuine diversity of African American artists and their audiences nationwide."

I think this is enough to make C the strongest answer. Still though, it seems like the more textually supported interpretation is national meaning reflecting the views of African Americans across the nation, not necessarily being physically located anywhere in particular.

I understand why C is the best answer but I'm a little caught up on the "now being recognized for the pivotal role.." portion of it.

The textual support for this is "One of the most important, though until recently little-studied, legacies of the program were its "Negro Units,"..."

I don't think the fact that the Negro Units are now being studied more is enough to draw the conclusion that they are now 'being recognized for the pivotal role.."