Might I just say, 10 through me for a loop.

First of all, I had to keep thinking, does this apply to UNESCO as a whole or just the doctrine? The stimulus only mentions UNESCO. Alright, so what would the author agree with?

A. Correct. I brushed this statement off because I had trouble finding an inkling of support. I'm sure I had this trouble because the statement was so weak. That should have been my red flag. The bar is set so low by the answer choice and they are asking if the author would agree. I did a soft eliminate. The author calls their doctrine "protective" (15) but I believe that the stronger support for this question comes from one of the reasons, according to the author, that UNESCO set up the regulations--to encourage "recording and preserving information about cultural antiquities (32-34). Well if that is one of the reasons that this doctrine was set in place, the author would be able to agree that UNESCO could play a role--but then I struggled with " an important role." Important role is supported by the influence that UNESCO had in order for work alongside other countries (15) and a number of countries building off of the UNESCO doctrine. Also, UNESCO coming into help was one of the hypothetical situations that the author mentioned would have led to a better alternative than the current loss of cultural knowledge (41-44).

B. We don't know what stemmed the creation of the doctrine. It certainly does not have to be because of Mali's circumstance.

C. Several states, individual states? Never mentioned and they are introducing a comparison. Eliminate.

D. Maybe they had all the right intentions and were aware of what artifacts were in Mali? Or maybe they wanted to respect Mali's authority in managing their own cultural knowledge? Too many unknowns.

E. This is the answer that got me both times (PT and BR). Maybe there was funding but it was not used in the best manner, such as the author's recommendation of helping Mali "exercise its trusteeship...by licensing excavations (41-44), which would have cost money--"fund..excavations" (5).

Q3 Which logically completes the last paragraph of the passage?

We ended with how the maintenance burns are the suggestion in order to avoid the crown fires. Furthermore, we introduced the idea that of

wildfires inevitably occurring thereafter.

I'm looking for something that continues the recommendation or what the state of the situation will be until the suggestion is implemented (if at all).

A. This puts the focus on the proximity of development to houses. I can see where this would trip someone up about not being able to do those prescribed maintenance burns because you wouldn't want to accidentally burn people's houses down. The fact is we just don't know what the cost-benefit analysis would play out to be if this was the case. Maybe the decision would be made to burn down the houses in order to eliminate this type of crown fire in the future. Eliminate.

B. This is the answer that I chose for both PT and BR. We don't know where the forestry community sits with the recommendation. Maybe they just didn't know about the harm that is worse than allowing the fires to occur in regards to the future degree of fire harm. Maybe they are the ones that asked researchers to look into what would happen under their current mode of operation. Eliminate. Why did I choose it? Because I wasn't reading carefully and didn't even bother to eliminate other answer choices.

C. Correct. Didn't choose this under PT or BR. It all comes down to the fact that I did not pay attention to nuances of the answer choice. It ended with "in the near term." The answer choice fills in the blank on how quickly these recommendations can fill the recommendation if they are ascribed to, and it would be natural to say that until those couple years of implementation that the threat would remain.

D. The passage only states that there is an industry for this type of trade, not if it is booming or not, let alone a comparison.

E. Maybe it would be cheap to implement this strategy--or at least cheaper than fighting the crown fires is possible. The passage did not discuss financial cost only more or less damage.

Congratulations Daniel! 7SAGE is taking over Harvard one acceptance at a time!

I'll be out for this PT--be back next week for PT 72!

MC:

Newpaper article concludes that Britain's union strength is declining because there has been a decrease in the size and number of strikes. The union's sole purpose is not to organize strikes. In modern industrial society, needing a strike is actually weak because it means they have less room for negotiation. The can concentrate their efforts elsewhere to increase profitable and humane working conditions.

What I am looking for:

Lack of strikes does not mean that the strength of the union is declining.

A. This is used as a premise for the subconclusion.

B. Maybe, maybe not. The argument barely touches on how they can concentrate efforts to work with others in the labor market, not if they actually practice this.

C. Exactly. We don't know if the union strength is diminishing, not based on the premises above.

D. We don't know the reason for a union's existence. We only know that they do not exist only to organize strikes.

E. The example of humane working conditions is brought in as support for the subconclusion.

Flaw:

Sandy- Multiple people win the lottery at the end of the week and split the total. It's best to play when there have been no winners for a while because of the total rolls over from previous weeks.

Alex- Sandy you're wrong. Your likelihood of winning goes up when the money pot is small because fewer people are playing.

What I am looking for:

Alex is talking about a different lottery because Sandy is playing Bigbucks, the total is large, while Alex argues probability of winning.

A. We have no opinion from either about how many times you can play before it hurting you (if that even exists).

B. Correct. Sandy is talking about when you can get the biggest amount and Alex says her advice is wrong because her likelihood of winning is dependant on fewer people playing.

C. Sandy does not talk about the likelihood of winning, Alex does.

D. Alex discusses the likelihood of winning in a different context. Fewer people playing means you have a greater chance (proportional) of winning. Here it's saying your likelihood of winning is based upon if someone won last week.

E. This is what I chose in the PT and on BR. Why did I choose it? Didn't locate the flaw in the first place and this was a mish mash of the stimulus above. Sandy does not discuss likelihood, only the size of the pot.

PSA:

Some people claim it not okay to both support freedom of speech and support legislation that limits violence on TV. Well, it is okay. Limiting violence on TV through this legislation is more beneficial than the damage done to our freedom of speech.

What I am looking for:

Some limitations on freedom of speech can be overridden by other needs.

A. We do not need to consider what would happen if we didn't pass legislation to limit violence. This still does not connect to the idea of freedom of speech.

B. Correct. It is okay to have apparently conflicting ideals because of other interests.

C. Making the most people happy is nowhere in this stimulus, thankfully.

D. This goes against what the critic is arguing for (at least could if we assume that limited violence on TV is harm).

E. Actually picked this on BR when I got it right on the PT. It happens and just means I didn't see it clearly enough. In order for this to be correct we would have to assume that freedom of speech is a basic freedom. They are playing off of the American understanding of freedom of course.

Well, I made this much harder than it had to be because I was not actively keeping the parts of the flawed argument structure in my mind as I made my way through the answers.

Parallel Flaw:

Father likes X, not Y. So not true (like Y you like X).

What I am looking for:

Going from a specific example to general and flipping the variables.

A. Eliminate because of some. The generalization flaw is present but the claims are not flipped. This book is /X but rather Y. So not true (XsomeY).

B. Bingo. Specific to general flaw and flipped the parts of the argument. Published work of fiction is X, not Y. So not the case that (all Ys are X).

C. This argument is not flawed so it cannot be the correct flaw (it's not flawed if we can assume houses are buildings).

D. Not a flawed argument, we have one instance, Erika who doesn't Y but likes X. So yes the whoever statement must be false, as stated in the answer.

Erika likes X, not Y. So not true (liking X means liking Y).

E. X-->Y, we have Y, therefore X. Flawed because the rule falls away if we have already met the necessary condition.

Difficult question for me because I did not take into account the two conditions listed for genuine happiness. That is what the wrong answer choices are playing off of.

NA:

There is a claim that people should accept themselves rather than being dissatisfied with their disabilities. If the society's goal is having citizens' that are genuinely happy, this is a bad principle. If you are not pursuing personal excellence and are unwilling to undergo personal change then you cannot be genuinely happy.

What I am looking for:

You cannot pursue personal excellence and are unwilling to undergo personal change if you accept yourself.

A. Willing to change is only one of the two necessary conditions. Both are required according to the stimulus to achieve genuine happiness.

B. Correct. Originally I believed this to be irrelevant because we were comparing likelihood. At second glance it is crucial. What if people who are not dissatisfied (or rather accept themselves/satisfied) are just as likely as others to pursue personal excellence? We need this to keep the argument afloat.

C. But what if you could achieve personal excellence and not have genuine confidence? This does not wreck the argument.

D. We do not discuss justification in this passage, only should and should nots.

E. This cannot be correct because we would have to assume that pursuing personal excellence and willingness to change are painful.

MSS:

Purpose of general theory = explain every aesthetic feature that is found in any of the arts.

Premodern theories of art generally explained painting and sculpture, yet failed to explain some aesthetic feature of music.

A. What if the there is at least one theory that is exclusive to either painting or sculpture? The stimulus never mentions a single instance of a theory covering both.

B. This is conflating the necessity of explaining every aesthetic feature found in any of the arts to be sufficient for the theory to achieve its purpose.

C. But what if it could? Our stimulus only mentions that premodern theories failed to explain some aesthetic features, not that all modern theories have this characteristic. We just don’t know.

D. Correct. This is saying that if music is an art then premodern general theory of art has not achieved its purpose; exactly so MA-->/AP

E. Not stated, rather “fails to explain some aesthetic features of music.” The any in this answer choice goes too far. It would be correct if any were replaced by some.

NA:

(Context) Some psychologists find simple stimulus-response in reptiles to lack a significant explanation of reptiles food gathering behavior, so they conclude these reptiles must have complex reasoning. (Argument begins) Experiments show that reptiles are not capable of making major alterations thus they are incapable of complex reasoning.

What I am looking for:

What if reptiles are capable of complex reasoning and just chose not to make the changes. There must be a link between the capability of complex reasoning and major alterations.

A. What if animals could make major changes in their behavior and were only possibly capable of complex reasoning? We do not need to limit the when animals can make major changes. Sufficient/necessary is switched.

B. We don’t need in principle, we need this particular example. This really does nothing.

C. This sounds like it would weaken the stimulus and strengthen when negated. The opposite of what we want.

D. Bingo. This gives us just enough, which is exactly what is needed from a necessary assumption. If they were capable of complex reasoning and were not or chose not to make major changes to their behavior.

E. What if they can work in tandem? We don’t need this.

Wow, I got this answer right with the wrong understanding of virtually every. I noted that it wasn't quite an A-->B situation but notated it in that manner; what saved me is that I was consistent with this translation in both the stimulus and answer choice. Going forward I won't forget that! I keep my write-up so you can see what I mean

Soil -most-> clay

Soil --> sand or organic material (should have been a -most-> statement because virtually every is a most)

---------------------------------------------

Soil -some-> clay & sand

Soil -some-> clay & organic material.

Invalid argument. We can get a some relationship ( if we take the virtually out) clay & sand/ clay & organic material/ clay & sand & organic material

A. P -most-> C, what do I need? P --> something, then a some statement of A.

What do I get? P--> S or T, then another conditional, strike, wrong, eliminate.

B. P -most-> C but they make that a conclusion and give a premise. Nope.

C. P -most-> C, keeping an eye out for the "nearly all" to see if it matches "virtually every kind" --P -(?)-> S or T. (/P some C and T) --> P -some-> C and cosmetics. This leaves room for one not being a possibility, the stimulus gives two results, not an either-or situation, which is what the answer choice gives us.

D. P -most-> C; PS --> T; P -some-> C & T, P -some-> C & S, I'm keeping an eye out for the necessary condition in the premise, not sitting right but not going to eliminate in case I've misunderstood something.

E. P -most-> C, great; P --> S or T. Again, what is with the "nearly all?" Is that the same thing as "virtually every kind?" For this translation, I made it the same thing ( should have been a -most->) Conclusion: P -some-> C &T; P -some-> C &S, exactly. We have the right match, phew.

[context] Abstract knowledge of science is rarely useful in adults daily lives, but skills from secondary education should be useful for decisions in daily life (should have paid attention to the referential).

[argument] Therefore, the science courses in the secondary education should teach students to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues, what is being taught now are abstract aspects of science.

Pre-phrase: Evaluating science-based argument regarding practical issues can be useful for decisions in everyday life.

A. No, the argument allows for continuing the abstract or not.

B. Why should the abstract be at least as important as teaching them to evaluate science-based arguments? If this were reversed it would have been the right answer. Negating this actually strengthens the argument.

C. This shows that abstract science doesn't improve what the recommendation is seeking to improve. The negation is: Adults who have an abstract knowledge of science are better at evaluating science-based arguments regarding practical issues than are adults who have no knowledge of science at all. This doesn't weaken the argument because the stimulus said "very seldom" does the abstract science help in this regard. This negation is one of the "very seldom" cases. Super tricky.

D. All we are told is that they "should teach" this kind of science over abstract, we cannot assume that it is not being taught. They could just be affirming what is being taught as more valuable than the abstract science that is still taught also.

E. Exactly what my pre-phrase was but after sorting through this mess, I should have just gone into hunt mode, rather than grappled with the other answer choices. The negation wrecks this argument. The ability to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues is never useful in making decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives. If it's never useful the argument has lost that specific grounds to implement this type of science in secondary education.

SA:

VLAWS-->VL-->/AL

(/AL-->/PS)

VLAWS→ /PS

What I am looking for:

/AL→ /PS; most likely the contrapositive though

A. Correct. The contrapositive of the missing link. We needed to connect this idea of not know is actions are legal to not feeling secure.

B. This is not strong enough. The might is the reason I eliminated it on BR. Our conclusion states “cannot be secure.” This is a necessary assumption but doesn’t take us all the way to validity.

C. One of the oldest tricks in the book. AL-->PS

D. We don’t need to connect to not vague or vague. We did not discuss acute laws, only vague ones so we cannot make the verdict that this answer does.

E. Same as C but more difficult of phrasing. AL-->PS

PSA: These two projects are on equal ground, they are equally important and remain undone. One is already late and the second one will also be late if I devote time to the first. There's no guarantee that I'll finish the latter on time, but I should spend all my time on the latter.

Principle--all things being equal except for one being late and the latter is not late yet, if the probability of finishing on time exists, you should strive to finish that project without deviation.

A. Yes, this agrees with part of the principle, but it doesn't address why we should choose one project over the other, which is exactly what the principle does mention.

B. Um, I like it but am having trouble with the fact that this answer focuses on finishing but doesn't mention on time or not, just that you'd like to finish one instead of failing both. Do we know that not finishing on time means failing? It could just mean a penalty.

C. We don't have any optional projects here.

D. This brings in the state of the mind, which is interesting. They are definitely playing to our inner talk. Is it the worry what we are trying to ward off? No. This doesn't push us to either project.

E. Great, it matches the strength of the principle--"attempt to finish", "no guarantee but still should devote all time." Oops, the first time I read this I didn't realize the not in the "does not have higher priority." These projects are equal, and one's already late, so finish the one that you have a shot at completing before the due date has passed.

Method of Reasoning:

Knowledge= true belief formed by a reliable process. Critics of this definition point out that the def has flaws because if someone had a reliable power of clairvoyance, we wouldn’t accept this knowledge because of this power. The essayist agrees that we would reject the claim but because it does not fit the definition of knowledge, and if it had fit the definition we would accept it.

What I am looking for:

The objection is not based on the actual definition or understanding of knowledge.

A. Correct. Reliability of clairvoyance is not the same as “a true belief formed by a reliable process.” Furthermore, the argument shifted from reliable process to reliable power. They are not equivalent. So the objection is not against the definition because it does not address the actual definition.

B. The essayist does not argue for clairvoyance, although he says we would accept it as knowledge if it would follow the definition set forth.

C. Does not happen, the essayist just mentions clairvoyance at the end of the stimulus to strengthen and clarify their position on the correct expression of the definition of knowledge.

D. Personal choice is not mentioned here. This is aimed at your personal bias of relativism, etc., if you chose this.

E. This is a tricky one and I couldn’t eliminate it fast enough because I did not completely understand it. The essayist does not spend time demonstrating the case of clairvoyance, rather the case of the correct definition of knowledge. Furthermore, the current understanding of clairvoyance is not accepted as knowledge but the author does allow for “belief in clairvoyance” to possibly lead to accepting knowledge claims on the basis of it, so both parts fail the must be true test.

I’ve found that I avoid picking the last sentence in MC because it would be too obvious, well sometimes they are the low hanging fruit, pick them and move on.

MC:

Among the top athletes, muscular strength does not differ much; furthermore we know that this strength is a limited resource. So in order to use this resource effectively athletic techniques can help. That is why a superior mastery of athletic techniques is being argued for, it includes some variability in the mastery level whereas the stimulus has limited muscular strength to around the same value.

What I am looking for: Superior mastery of athletic techniques is necessary to become a champion.

A. The stimulus does not limit this mastery to champions, it's a necessity to be a champion however.

B. This ignores what the argument says, their muscular strength is about the same when you reach a certain level.

C. Bingo. This is the restatement of the last sentence, the conclusion.

D. This is the support for “athletic techniques help to use this resource efficiently,” (sub conclusion).

E. See D.

Pretty sure I skipped and came back and still didn't see the answer so let's weaken it now.

Two groups of students were taught how to make one of the types of tools that Neanderthals made in prehistoric times. One group had both demonstrations and explanations, the other only had silent demonstration. Speed for acquiring skill and level of proficiency was not markedly different. So, (here comes the conclusion) Neandrathals could have created their sophisticated tools without language.

Wow, what if our minds are different than Neandrathals and they needed language. Also, the conclusion talks about sophisticated tools, whereas the experiment didn't specify if the tool they made was sophisticated or not. Also, are we excluding demonstration as language?

A. The conclusion allows for this because of the statement "even if they had no language." So this does nothing to the argument.

B. Okay, now alongside verbal and demonstrations on the part of the presenter, the students in the former group were able to discuss and the latter did not? So what, this stands with what was observed but doesn't even link to the conclusion.

C. Exactly, this was one of my prephrases, the students replicated a tool but the conclusion jumps to the ability to create sophisticated tools without language. Now, this draws a distance between the experiment and what the Neandrathals would do in the case of making sophisticated tools. Our study doesn't tell us anything about that and it cannot be used as evidence for the conclusion in the manner that it is presented.

D. Great, less proficient and still students were able to reach the other group's level of mastery.

E. Now we are bringing in the Neandrathals neighbors? No. Hard eliminate.

Difficult question type for me--

Context: It's argued that moral codes differing between cultures mean that it must not be something from universal human nature. This argument is flawed (why?). There are some moral attitudes that that are universal. And here the comes the analogy--certain universal tastes in different cultural contexts, provide the basis for many different cuisines, some cultures may choose to use or exemplify different moral codes from something universal (the attitudes).

A. No, the argument is trying to argue that it is from some universal human nature but another factor plays into which codes recede and become prominent.

B. Of most cultures? This is not the emphasis that we need. Something about choice or preference is needed.

C. Umm, skip and come back. Exactly, there is preference here, but it is based on something universal (shared moral attitudes). When you re-word the answer choice to match the last sentence, it becomes clear--"just as certain universal tastes provide the basis from many different cuisines, shared moral attitudes provide the basis for a variety of moral codes."

D. We are not looking for the ability to understand, just that there is some universal human nature.

E. Hmm, I like this one, just like the sweetness and saltiness can be adapted to fit the cuisine that each culture prizes. But, is the adaptation of something universal? This answer choice plays to choice but leaves that crucial universal trait out. It's the moral attitudes that the stimulus states are universal and the answer choice wants to change the universal in order to suit the moral codes. What would this look like in the stimulus? Universal tastes can be adapted to suit the (not sure what moral codes would be here since it's mentioned in the first sentence) of many different cuisines.

Weaken:

Advances in technology is going to lead to more personalized electronic news services. If these services increase, printed newspapers will decline drastically.

What I am looking for:

What if people browse newspapers for the comics, not just the stories.

A.Correct. The key here is that most individuals get more out of their printed newspapers. Therefore, it would weaken the conclusion that most people would stop backing the printed version leading to a dramatic decline in their printing.

B. Alright, here we are comparing the different tech news options. What if they are still significantly less than the price of the printed. It does not have to weaken.

C. Great, so the population mentioned in this answer are probably not buying the printed newspapers in the first place. How would knowing this lead to drastic decline?

D. Now they have equal costs. This answer is baiting us to assume that there is nothing special about the printed newspaper so cost would be the only determining factor for purchase.

E. This still would lead us to the same assumption as D. Not weakening.

This question took me forever it seems, ended up getting it wrong even after taking a second look at it on the PT.

SA:

V only used a couple of props in his paintings. Looking at this people may believe that it's because that all he had, yet his props were expensive. We can speculate why, but we can definitely rule out a lack of props.

What I am looking for:

He had expensive props and he continued to use them repeatedly linking to not lacking props or access to them for his work.

A. This would seem to weaken the argument if anything. Maybe he did lack props or had lots of cheaper props yet borrowed the most expensive to include in this painting and inspiration.

B. This does not help me connect why he rotated his expensive props exclusively in his rotation.

C. Alright, they were owned by his sister. This could open the possibility that he lacked props and only his rich sister kept a majority (2/3) of his rotating props.

D. Well, what if they had special sentimental value to him because they were the only ones he had? This certainly doesn't help.

E. Correct. This closes the gap between expensive props not equalling a dearth of props.

Weaken:

There's a study that determines the cost of sedentary life upon society beyond the ordinary costs. The sum is over $1,000 and thus this voluntary action not to exercise is a burden to society.

What I am looking for:

Huge weakness, what if this sedentary life is not voluntary, but rather something people are predisposed to. That would wreck it.

A. Yes but are these people the portion of society included in the costs beyond the ordinary? We'd have to assume that in order to think that this could weaken the argument.

B. What if people in this population don't need to hear from their doctor that exercise is good for them in order to partake in it?

C. Bingo. Calls out the assumption of voluntary and make the condition a predisposition. Well, the argument is not looking so good now.

D. Great, we have variance, but this answer doesn't address the voluntary assumption.

E. Good to know but this does nothing to weaken the stimulus.

I'll be out for this call, didn't get a chance to take PT76 due to traveling with work.

University of Virginia School of Law--still can't believe I'm going to my dream school!

Loving the GIF @!

It'd be great to have you again @