The reasoning for answer choice B makes no sense. It says that they "began a major road repair..." It does not say that they ever finished it!! I'm from California and roads are under construction for many more years. Just a weird assumption to make that they were thereby completed and now roads are safer to drive on...

Low-resolution summaries:

P1: Latin v. Spanish poetry

P2: Latin: critical, Spanish: more accepting

P3: Latin: progressive, Spanish: conservative

High-resolution summaries:

P1: While some critics believe that there is unity in the Latin Spanish, they are wrong. The language was transplanted with Columbus, but the two approaches to poetry differ in key aspects.

P2: Latin culture is critical in its attitude towards language and Spanish is more accepting.

P3: Latin: progressive, no long standing past to romanticize - curiosity of other cultural literature. Spanish conservative, romanticizes the past 3 Latin poet examples provided

View point(s): V1: critics believe in a linguistic unity in Latin Poetry, Va: author disagrees with the critics and believes that the latin poetry/literature differs greatly because they are having to form their new cultural identity.

Tone: Neutral, understanding of why Latin poetry is the way it is

Main point: Latin versus Spanish cultural distinctions. There is a favoritism in Latin culture in the text.

Questions 17 & 18 were toughies.

Low-resolution summaries:

P1: Multipolar international systems

P2: Bipolar international systems

P3: Cold war, reassessment of ^

P4: Builds on this ^ w/ examples

High-resolution summaries:

P1: Multipolarity is explained and how they are fluid and flexible. Multiple superpowers with smaller groups contributing to the big ones. Example of the Concert of Europe is given to explain its historic success rate.

P2: Bipolarity is explained here and how it is a winner takes all game. Two major superpowers, rigid and flexible systems.

P3: MP stated in the first paragraph of this. We are also discussing how modern day weapons don’t allow us to apply the same theoretical principles of multipolarity international systems as we had in the 19th century (nukes are more dangerous and destructive than muskets for example).

P4: This paragraph builds on paragraph 3 and discusses why the Cold War may need to be looked at in a new light. Despite the period of peace in the 19th century, this could have led to the instability of the continent brought on by WWII. The bipolarity of the USSR and USA may have led to overall peace.

View point(s): Va: skeptical of hypothetical designs of multipolarity international systems promoting piece over the bipolar system

Tone: Critical of social scientist assessment in P1

Main point: In light of the cold war, reassessment of multipolarity and bipolarity needs to be done.

I can't believe the only question I got wrong on this passage was the FREAKIN MP!!!

How tf this section have 6-5 star difficulty questions wtf.

Would AC A be the answer if this was a NA question? I was stuck between A and C so long and during review, I can only see that as its downfall (aside for C being the missing link) #help

I treated this as a NA question and ended up choosing A. I didn't see any sufficient indicator words such as "if" in the stem. Well this is a great wake up call for me.

You can completely chain everything together. I did this and negated the whole thing and had two big conditional chains to work with. I think that this section was designed for you to save at least 10+ minutes for the last game to essential brute force some of the questions. You just have to do you best at eliminated 1 or 2 or hopefully 3 answer choices each question that may need to be "brute forced" and that way you only have to try a few.

E felt like such a trap answer, but none of the other answer choices made sense. Ugh.

TWO STAR DIFFICULTY? Alright my guy.

Funny how I completed passage 1,2, and 4 in the timed section and saved 3 for last. I had to PEE SO BAD. Ironically it was about my own disposition.

Passage seemed really difficult imo.

Chose B because it roughly matched my prephrase, but in actuality it only matched a few ideas but connected them improperly. I should've just read A-E and I probably would've recognized else.

I totally got caught up with the first statement that consciousness arises from physical processes.

Paragraph 1:

The background is being set up for Curie's scientific discoveries.

Paragraph 2: Rather than constant emission as noted by Curie, it is now known that there is decay. Critics fault her for not reaching this conclusion. Author steps in and and says she did what she could do with the evidence around. Example is then given of elements decay states.

Paragraph 3: Physicists versus Chemist beliefs on the nature of the atom.

Paragraph 4: Author backs up Curie again and claiming that she "paved the way" for science.

Views: Author, critics, chemists, and physicists.

Tone: Support for Curie despite the critics trying to knock her down off the podium.

MP: Last sentence " Curie's investigation of radiation paved the way for later breakthroughs."

I spent 2:08 on this question and really only got to the answer by POE. Congestion does not indicate the speeds of the motorists...

I had a really difficult time telling the difference between D and E.

I chose trap answer choice B during PT and then in BR I chose the other trap answer! UGH

Basically percentage versus number?

How did I diagram this perfectly and still choose C. UGH.

I'd be interested.

#help I eliminated B because it talked about "other mountainous regions". I thought this was too much of a leap because what if the Rockies are unique to the rest of the world? What if they are exactly the same as other mountainous regions. We don't know.

#28 was really difficult even under BR.

I narrowed down between D and E and I'm still kind of lost. I prephrased, "an example supporting/expanding upon the conclusion." We are given an example of why poets are made melancholic by writing poetry because poetry itself has depressing qualities.

I understand the "and by the way melancholy means" but I'm still struggling to see how my interpretation of it isn't inclusive.

#help (Added by Admin)

Here is my shitty analysis that got me 2/5 on timed and 2/5 on BR.

Low-resolution summaries:

P1: psychology of decision making

P2: cost-benefit-analysis

P3: subjective and rational talk.

High-resolution summaries:

P1: Perceived losses motivate more than the prospect of a loss of equal gain. Therefore, risk taking is a more common strategy for those who believe they will lose what they already possess compared to those who wish to gain something they do not have.

P2: Risky ventures only chosen over a sure thing if the payoff is high. Previous viewpoints show that a 50% chance to lose $100 is unacceptable unless it is accompanied by a chance to win $300. Nevertheless, alt to a sure loss is a chance of losing an even larger amt, coupled with a small chance of losing nothing.

P3: Huge risks may be taken if there is a subjective value to that nation. Sometimes these risks are against rational risk taking strategies. Example of Britain v. Argentina.

View point(s): Va: Understand other nations' subjective views. Questionable of research at times, but accepting overall.

Tone: Accepting of the data, skeptical, and willing to apply the research to irl examples.

Main point: The psychology of decision making introduces rational arguments of perceived win versus loss with a bit of subjective value, case in point: Britain and Argentina.