My problem with 16 A was that it assigns a value judgement where we can infer none from the author. It tells us what she was after but I don't see a line that refers to it as the "best" approach, more so that critics criticized the intentionally formal aspects of her work. Any views on this?

#help (Added by Admin)

Pretty frustrating inference to make on 28. I felt like it was too far down in the passage and at that point the author's voice to infer that experts would feel that way about the exemption, when the sentence in context makes it sounds like they are most concerned with making it clear that electronic reproduction rights are held, not in carving out any kinds of exemptions. Anyone have any tips on how they made the inference for A over B?

#help (Added by Admin)

Misread "underlie" as "undermine." No wonder the choices seemed so difficult

Number 4: Mistake for me in not choosing B was I presumed visible meant the same thing as identifiable! Those are two different things!!!

Number 12..., I ain't a law student yet man. I think a lot of my problem on this passage came from a misunderstanding of property law as something separate from common law

26 was tough. I chose A over E because I felt like “impossible” was too strong of an inference when the paragraph said that it depends on the best available data. I suppose in retrospect A is more incorrect because it seems more like you can create an accurate historical account from archaeological data in all cases while the author says it is dependent on the data. i

I think my mistake here was certainly that I thought E sounded better, but didn't look closely enough at the logic. However, I did not have a valid reason why A would be wrong! All the other answer choices have to be wrong!

Still having a hard time dealing with no. 6. I chose A over D because although A is undoubtedly a strong statement, we know that Gilliam does not like aesthetic conservatism, for D we just know that Gilliam participated in the Color Field movement, we don't know that he explicitly endorses their aims as that seemed like too much of an assumption for me. Anyone have any advice on this?

#help (Added by Admin)

Haven't seen a question with a curve quite like no. 13 in quite some time. Anyone have any other examples of passages where the in-line question is actually buried miles away

I laughed my ass off when I started reading this because I just knew it was going to be a nightmare

I studied Demography in college and think it totally threw me off here, as I chose B instead of E. I thought E was a poor argument because it tells us nothing about how much the population will grow when food production reaches its maximum level. Perhaps, for example, birth rates are declining as they have in real life, the population will grow for only 1 day after food production reaches its maximum and food production although at a maximum is way beyond the needs of the population. E for me told me something more concrete about limits to food production, but looking now I see that it is redundant information because it restates a premise. Anyway, an important lesson for me not to focus on the world of the question and to not pick an answer choice that simply restates a premise for a strengthening question

Urgh 6 irks me because I stared at that very line and concluded that the author would recommend it as a wider group of practices, not to simply disregard such a policy altogether

I fell for D on BR, I see why A is correct and requires less assumptions, but had a hard time understanding why D is wrong. As someone said below it seems like D is a necessary assumption for Steven's argument, given that he wants to lower the limit and social drivers will be deterred by lowering the limit. I guess we couldn't infer a response for Miguel, but he similarly says that lowering the level will have little effect, implying that low drinking drivers do not pose a significant threat to the public, but I guess it is too far to indicate the "some" statement. If we were to change D to say "People who drink and drive whose blood alcohol level is below the legal limit pose a substantial threat to the public", would we then have a correct answer choice?

#help (Added by Admin)

This was a very tough question, wish the supervisor would be more explicit about which point he disagreed with! I felt the supervisor agreed with the conclusion presumed that because he agreed the process would "cost much" that the process would not be fuel-efficient, but I see now that I made too much of a presumption

13 was tough. I ruled out B because of "innovative alternative." That just seemed like too strong language when she reinterpreted data via the same process of spectroscopy. Also read prevailed in her time as referring to her theory, which was a misread on my part. Picked D instead, but I see now that word "contained" was a bit too strong. Ugh what a minor differentiation though

Ugh frustrating, chose A even though I could tell it was not simply an emotional appeal just because that change in the use of the word "afford" made sense to me. Should all inconsistent uses of a word be considered a flaw?

#help (Added by Admin)

What in the hell is 14

I fell for E because I felt that the principle was about legislation, while the conclusion was about a trade agreement, and figured that we could not consider a trade agreement to be necessarily equivalent to a treaty. I suppose that was an assumption I was supposed to make though?

Number 7... what

Okay, well now I know that apparently "offset" means net zero, it does not mean a reduction.

I understood the concept of the limited domain between the two theories. However, what threw me off was the premise "since repeat offenses may be no more serious than the initial offense." Due to that line, I presumed that there are some acceptable theories of retributivist criminal sentencing theories where criminals are given greater sentences for repeat crimes because the repeat offense could be more serious than the initial offense. Can anyone explain why these words don't matter or if I have misinterpreted them?

I chose B, because I got too hung up on those lines. Although I now see that was too much of inference to make about what was necessary for "reforming."

Not sure if anyone else made a similar mistake, but I think I chose A because I misinterpreted a referential phrase. The argument says "think otherwise" and my mind assumed that "think otherwise" referred to the subset using material for small scale projects because that's what they mostly do, but "otherwise" actually refers to the opposite of the opinion of most builders that the material is not good for larg term projects, therefore this subset believes this material is actually good for long term projects. Will have to remember that next time

Thanks for the tip! I took it today. Wish I had a curve and some help with the logic games though, as I found that section to be pretty difficult

Really was torn between B and C on this one. What made me give up on C was that author's referential phrase referred to a "small, hot, dense universe" as being a low state of entropy, whereas the answer choice said only in more general terms that "a hot and dense state is of low entropy." I felt like it was too general to say that any hot and dense state is of low entropy. For answer B though, from the author's perspective, although he describes it as unlikely that the initial state of our universe is cold empty space, the conclusion in his perspective states that they find this perspective convincing in the context of the theory. Does anyone have any thoughts or can they help me reconcile these two things?